Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 173 WIS2D 783 - State v. Coolidge

State v. Coolidge’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably State v. Tiepelman (2006), State v. Grindemann (2002)

28 state decisions

180199320002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on 119 Wis. 2d 612 - State v. Harris · 148 Wis. 2d 1 - State v. Franklin · 158 Wis. 2d 458 - State v. Johnson · 164 Wis. 2d 120 - State v. Littrup · 119 Wis. 2d 651 - State v. Farr

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a question of law which we review de novo.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The state and Judge Wagner-Malloy classified the defendant's challenge to his sentences as a motion for modification of sentence under sec. 973.19, Stats., requiring the defendant to prove the existence of a "new factor" as stated in State v. Franklin, 148 Wis. 2d 1, 8 , 434 N.W.2d 609, 611 (1989). We disagree. An examination of the challenges presented in the motion reveals that none ask the court to modify the sentences, but all ask the court to correct the sentences imposed in violation of Wisconsin law and which, therefore, are in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by law. The motion also asks the court to correct the sentences based on a due process violation. This type of motion is governed by sec. 974.06, Stats., and does not require the application of the "new factor" test.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “is a repeater if he was convicted of a felony during the 5-year period immediately preceding the commission of the crime for which he is presently being sentenced.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.