Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2001 WIAPP 109 - State v. Skibinski

State v. Skibinski’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee County · 214 Wis. 2d 628 - State v. Alexander · 105 Wis. 2d 32 - State v. Banks · 53 Wis. 2d 699 - State v. Driscoll · 139 Wis. 2d 544 - CONTEMPT IN STATE v. Dewerth

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

  1. “[W]hen a defendant has two or more prior convictions, the convictions must be proven as an element of the offense, and are predicate to conviction of the graduated offenses. State v. Alexander, 214 Wis. 2d 628, 652 , 571 N.W.2d 662 (1997).... The August 10th OWI cannot be treated as a third offense because the State did not and could not prove that Skibinski had two or more prior convictions at the time of the August 10th OWI. At the time he" pled guilty to the August 10th OWI, Skibinski had only one prior OWI conviction. Thus, the trial court erred when it counted the September 19th OWI together with the prior conviction to make the August 10th OWI a third offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In the instant case, the question posed is whether the trial court can accept guilty pleas to a second and third offense OWI, and then apply the increased penalties of third offense OWI to both charges at sentencing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he September 19th conviction must be sentenced as a third offense.”
    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.