2000 WI App 144 - Evers v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
February 2003
most recently cited
15 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Sandin v. Conner · Meachum v. Fano · Exxon Corporation v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue · 211 Wis. 2d 397 - State v. Setagord · 208 Wis. 2d 361 - Truttschel v. Martin
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2m) (a) The department may enter into one or more contracts with a private person for the transfer and confinement in another state of prisoners who have been committed to the custody of the department. Any such contract shall provide for all of the following: 1. A termination date. 2. Provisions concerning the costs of prisoner maintenance, extraordinary medical and dental expenses and any participation in or receipt by prisoners of rehabilitative or correctional services, facilities, pro grams or treatment, including those costs not reasonably included as part of normal maintenance. 3. Provisions concerning any participation in programs of prisoner employment if any, the disposition or crediting of any payments received by prisoners on account of employment, and the crediting of proceeds from or disposal of any products resulting from employment. 4. Delivery and retaking of prisoners. 5. Regular reporting procedures concerning Wisconsin prisoners by the private person with which the department is contracting. 6. Provisions concerning procedures for probation, parole, extended supervision and discharge. 7. The same standards of reasonable and humane care as the prisoners would receive in an appropriate Wisconsin institution. 8. Any other matters as are necessary and appropriate to fix the obligations, responsibilities and rights of Wisconsin and the private person with which the department is contracting. (c) Any hearing to consider parole to which a prisoner confined under”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Had the legislature wished to restrict the department's authority to implement the contracts authorized under § 301.21, or to limit its authority to the transfer of'volunteers' only, it could easily have said so . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Parker“[sjupervise the custody and discipline of all prisoners.”
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.