State v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 227 Wis. 2d 389 - State v. Curiel · 157 Wis. 2d 790 - Wilson v. Waukesha County · 226 Wis. 2d 565 - Jones v. State · 161 Wis. 2d 210 - In Re Marriage of Lang · 182 Wis. 2d 97 - Grosse v. Protective Life Insurance
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Webster's defines "use" as "to put into action or service," to "apply to advantage" and "to carry out a purpose or action by means of." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 2523-24 (1993). In terms of the statute, these meanings show that the mere fact that the firearm is with a person is not enough. The firearm had to be part of the crime in some way. Lest our holding be misunderstood, we hasten to clarify that the firearm's involvement in the crime need not be active. . . .But, if a person simply has a gun uncased in a car and the car goes into a ditch, that person has neither put the gun into action or service, availed himself or herself of it, nor carried out any purpose or action by means of the weapon. In Perez's case, there is no evidence that Perez. . ."used" the firearms to commit a crime as that term is understood in everyday language.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Perez“requires more than possession of a dangerous weapon in committing a crime before Wis. Stat. § 968.20 (lm)(b) bars return of the weapon. We disagree with this conclusion for the offense of carrying a concealed and dangerous weapon, in which conscious possession of a dangerous weapon is an element of the crime. ¶ 3. We hold that a person convicted of going armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon contrary to Wis. Stat. § 941.23 has”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Perez“I cannot accept the majority's conclusion that a defendant who has admitted arming himself or herself with a dangerous weapon and then concealing the weapon has not used the weapon for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 968.20 (1m)(b).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Perez
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.