State v. Crochiere’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably State v. Harbor (2011), State v. Stenklyft (2005)
32 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary v. State · State v. Gallion · 70 Wis. 2d 280 - Rosado v. State · 46 Wis. 2d 93 - Hayes v. States · 60 Wis. 2d 506 - State v. Taylor
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he phrase "new factor" refers to a fact or set of facts highly relevant to the imposition of sentence, but not known to the trial judge at the time of original sentencing, either because it was not then in existence or because, even though it was then in existence, it was unknowingly overlooked by all of the parties.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Harbor · State v. Trujillo“discretionary power that is exercised within defined parameters.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n inmate's desire to testify at a post-conviction hearing regarding his side of the story, Rosado, 70 Wis. 2d at 288 ; the introduction of sentencing guidelines recommending a different sentence than the one a convicted defendant received, State v. Macemon, 113 Wis. 2d 662, 669 , 336 N.W.2d 402 (1983); disparity in sentencing between co-defendants, State v. Toliver, 187 Wis. 2d 346, 361-62 , 523 N.W.2d 113 (Ct. App. 1994); an inmate's progress or rehabilitation while incarcerated, State v. Kluck, 210 Wis. 2d 1, 7-8 , 563 N.W.2d 468 (1997) and State v. Krueger, 119 Wis. 2d 327, 335 , 351 N.W.2d 738 (Ct. App. 1984); an inmate's response to treatment while incarcerated, State v. Prince, 147 Wis. 2d 134, 136-37 , 432 N.W.2d 646 (Ct. App. 1988); an inmate's shorter-than-normal life expectancy, State v. Ramuta, 2003 WI App 80, ¶ 21 , 261 Wis. 2d 784 , 661 N.W.2d 483 ; or an inmate's post-sentencing declining health, Michels, 150 Wis. 2d at 99-100 [State v. Michels, 150 Wis. 2d 94, 99-100 , N.W.2d 278 (Ct. App. 1989)].”
2 later decisions 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.