State v. Schulpius’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Ardonis Greer v. Wayne J. Wiedenhoeft (2014), Milwaukee Police Association v. City of Milwaukee (2016)
26 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 Mathews v. Eldridge · County of Sacramento v. Lewis · Carey v. Piphus · United States v. Calandra · Farrar v. Hobby
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id. (quoting State v. Joseph E.G., 2001 WI App 29, ¶ 13 , 240 Wis. 2d 481 , 623 N.W.2d 137 ). ¶ 58.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“If the court finds that the person is appropriate for conditional release, the court shall notify the department of health and family services. The department of health and family services and the county department under s. 51.42 in the county of residence of the person shall prepare a plan that identifies the treatment and services, if any, that the person will receive in the community. The plan shall address the person's need, if any, for supervision, medication, community support services, residential services, vocational services, and alcohol or other drug abuse treatment. The department of health and family services may contract with a county department, under s. 51.42 (3) (aw) 1. d., with another public agency or with a private agency to provide the treatment and services identified in the plan. The plan shall specify who will be responsible for providing the treatment and services identified in the plan. The plan shall be presented to the court for its approval within 21 days after the court finding that the person is appropriate for conditional release, unless the county department, department of health and family services and person to be released request additional time to develop the plan. If the county department of the person's county of residence declines to prepare a plan, the department of health and family services may arrange for another county to prepare the plan if that county agrees to prepare the plan and if the individual will be living in that county.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The department shall make its best effort to arrange for placement of the person in a residential facility or dwelling that is in the persons [sic] county of residence, as determined by the department under § 980.105 .... In developing a plan for where the person may reside while on supervised release, the department shall consider the proximity of any potential placement to the residence of other persons on supervised release and to the residence of persons who are in custody of the department of corrections and regarding whom a sex offender notification bulletin has been issued to law enforcement agencies under § 301.46(2m)(a) or (am).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.