Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 WIAPP 82 - State v. McKinnie

State v. McKinnie’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

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

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 88 Wis. 2d 546 - Harrell v. State · 66 Wis. 2d 71 - City of Madison v. Nickel · 219 Wis. 2d 739 - State v. Anderson · State v. Koller

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. “[Determining whether acts are sufficiently different in fact to warrant multiple charges] involves a determination of whether the charged acts are "separated in time or are of a significantly different nature." The "different nature" inquiry is not limited to an assessment of whether the acts are different types of acts. Rather, even the same types of acts are different in nature "if each requires 'a new volitional departure in the defendant's course of conduct.'" Furthermore, time is an important factor, but even a brief time separating acts may be sufficient.... The pertinent time question is whether the facts indicate the defendant had "sufficient time for reflection between the... acts to again commit himself [or herself]." (Citations omitted.)”
    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.