Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 WI App 262 - State v. Burris

2002 WI App 262 - State v. Burris’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 2004
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Neder v. United States · 123 Wis. 2d 366 - DeMars v. LaPour · State v. Harvey · 129 Wis. 2d 239 - State v. Williquette

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.

  1. “The state has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that any rule or condition of release has been violated, or that the safety of others requires that supervised release be revoked. If the court determines after hearing that any rule or condition of release has been violated, or that the safety of others requires that supervised release be revoked, it may revoke the order for supervised release and order that the released person be placed in an appropriate institution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “because it violated basic due process safeguards and that his revocation was not supported by the evidence. ¶ 2. We conclude that a circuit court is not required to expressly consider alternatives to revocation before revoking a sexually violent person's supervised release when the court determines that the safety of the public requires the person's commitment to a secure facility. Such a finding mirrors a finding that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “However, upon a finding that the safety of others requires revocation, the plain language of the statute removes any discretion from the circuit court. Simply stated, it is irrational to require consideration of alternatives to revocation after a court has found that the safety of others requires revocation.”
    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.