Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 181 Wis. 2d 73 - State v. Cleaves

181 Wis. 2d 73 - State v. Cleaves’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2016

9 state decisions

50199320002010decided

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 131 Wis. 2d 246 - State v. Bangert · 49 Wis. 2d 727 - Austin v. State · 157 Wis. 2d 740 - State v. Szarkowitz · 170 Wis. 2d 181 - Town of Menasha v. City of Menasha

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[I]n the absence of any objection to amounts claimed on a court-ordered restitution summary accompanying a presentence investigation, where a defendant has been given notice of the contents of that report and summary, the trial court is entitled to proceed on the understanding that the claimed amount is not in dispute, and so order restitution under [§ ] 973.20(13)(3).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]n the absence of any objection to ... crimes being read in, the court may assume that the defendant admits them for purposes of being considered at sentencing.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In Wisconsin, when a defendant agrees to crimes being read in at the time of sentencing, he makes an admission that he committed those crimes.”
    2 later decisions 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.