181 Wis. 2d 43 - State v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2019
24 state decisions
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 Dunn v. United States · United States v. DiFrancesco · United States v. Benz · Grant v. State · 82 Wis. 2d 565 - Karow v. Milwaukee County Civil Service Commission
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]djourn the sentencing proceeding for up to 60 days pending resolution of the amount of restitution by the court, referee or arbitrator.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ziegler · State v. Krohn“The overall objective of [ Wis. Stat. § 973.20 ] is to efficiently compensate crime victims for their pecuniary loss.... ... Construing the time period as mandatory could result in forcing a victim, as a result of circumstances beyond anyone's control, to go through the time, inconvenience and expense of a civil suit in order to recover pecuniary losses. Construing the time period as directory has no such negative consequence. In fact, it allows restitution proceedings held outside of the statutory time period for valid reasons to be upheld, thus achieving the overall goal of restitution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ziegler · State v. Krohn“It is important to note that our conclusion that the sixty-day time period in sec. 973.20(13)(c)2, Stats., is directory should not be read to imply that the provision is merely discretionary or permissive. The legislature intended that the time limit be followed, despite its intent that the defendant not avoid his or her obligation to pay restitution. Our determination that the provision is directory simply reflects that the legislature did not intend that the court be required in all cases to vacate the restitution order for a violation of the statutory time limitation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Evans · State v. Fernandez
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.