193 Wis. 2d 333 - State v. O'DELL’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Swift & Co. · 124 Wis. 2d 681 - State v. Wyss · 23 Wis. 2d 165 - CODEPT, INC. v. More-Way North Corp. · 64 Wis. 2d 154 - Akin v. Kewaskum Community Schools · 188 Wis. 2d 171 - Clark v. Milwaukee County
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A judge may grant an injunction ordering the respondent to avoid the child victim's residence or any premises temporarily occupied by the child victim or both, and to avoid contacting or causing any person other than a party's attorney to contact the child victim unless the petitioner consents to that contact in writing and the judge agrees that the contact is in the best interests of the child victim, if all of the following occur: 1. The petitioner files a petition alleging the elements set forth under sub. (6)(a). 2. The petitioner serves upon the respondent a copy of the petition and notice of the time for hearing on the issuance of the injunction, or the respondent serves upon the petitioner notice of the time for hearing on the issuance of the injunction. 3. After hearing, the judge finds reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in, or based upon prior conduct of the child victim and the respondent may engage in, abuse of the child victim.”
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.