State v. Michael S.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Thus, the waiver rule of Mikrut does not, according to Mikrut, control the outcome of this case. The present case involves a statutory time period that Mikrut left undisturbed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sheboygan County Department of Social Services v. Matthew S. · 359 Wis. 2d 204 - Tina B. v. Richard H.

2. “... the following principles are sound and should be maintained: the common-law waiver rule applies to challenges to the circuit court's competency, such that a challenge to the court's competency will be deemed waived if not raised in the circuit court, subject to the inherent authority of the reviewing court to disregard the waiver and address the merits of the unpreserved argument or to engage in discretionary review under Wis. Stat. §§ 751.06 or 752.35. Because competency does not equate with subject matter jurisdiction, we see no reason not to apply the rule of waiver to these challenges as a general matter. A judgment rendered where competency is lacking is not void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the competency challenge in this case is not premised upon noncompliance with statutory time limitations, we do not decide whether the particularized rule of nonwaiver stated in B.JJV. 13 (statutory time periods cannot be waived) should be maintained.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 WI App 193 - Stern v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission

3. “Failure by the court or a party to act within any time period specified in this chapter does not deprive the court of... competency to exercise that jurisdiction. Failure to object to a period of delay or a continuance waives any challenge to the court's competency to act during the period of delay or continuance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 359 Wis. 2d 204 - Tina B. v. Richard H.