2004 WI App 230 - State v. List’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County · Seider v. O'CONNELL · 95 Wis. 2d 191 - State v. Neitzel · 105 Wis. 2d 32 - State v. Banks · 168 Ill. 2d 298 - People v. Sheehan
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The court shall count the following to determine the length of a revocation under s. 343.30(lq)(b) and to determine the penalty under s. 114.09(2) and 346.65(2): (d) Convictions under the law of another jurisdiction that prohibits a person from refusing chemical testing or using a motor vehicle while intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance or controlled substance analog, or a combination thereof; with an excess or specified range of alcohol concentra tion; while under the influence of any drug to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving; or while having a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood, as those or substantially similar terms are used in that jurisdiction's laws. (e) Operating privilege suspensions or revocations under the law of another jurisdiction arising out of a refusal to submit to chemical testing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“facilitate the identification of drunken drivers and their removal from the highways,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[List's] placement under court supervision was a result of a determination that he "violated or failed to comply with the law in a court of original jurisdiction." [ Wis. Stat. § 340.01 (9r).] The Illinois sentence was therefore a conviction as defined by Wisconsin law, and counts toward the determination of the severity of his penalty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. MacHgan
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.