State v. Fenz’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary v. State · 119 Wis. 2d 612 - State v. Harris · 75 Wis. 2d 244 - Klimas v. State · 118 Wis. 2d 339 - State v. Wickstrom · 76 Wis. 2d 361 - Anderson v. State
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.
“unlike Struzik , the circuit court did not tack onto the sentence chosen the amount of time served; rather, the circuit court used presentence credit as a factor to fashion a sentence appropriate to achieve the court's goal in the first instance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Armstrong“because [the court] articulated a specific time-related incarceration goal [which] required the court to consider the presentence credit due”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Armstrong
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.