Christensen v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County · 150 Wis. 2d 688 - State v. Blalock · 91 Wis. 2d 103 - Kurtz v. City of Waukesha · 82 Wis. 2d 124 - State v. King · 33 Wis. 2d 636 - Mosing v. Hagen
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.
“Milwaukee County was put on notice of problems in the booking area in December of 2002 and January of 2003 when the County Board Judiciary Committee was forced to respond to complaints from Sheriffs' Deputies that overcrowding in the booking area was creating unsafe working conditions. . . . Moreover, conditions in the [BKOW] area alleged by members of the Plaintiff class are unacceptable, if not appalling . . . [including] overly crowded conditions, inmates who were forced to sit or sleep on the floor next to urinals, inmates who had to sit-up for hours and hours, lack of hygiene, unsanitary conditions, inmates who were not given pillows or blankets to sleep on, cells that were infested with bugs, cold temperatures, bodily fluids on the floor and bad odors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When the trial court concluded that sanctions or compensation for continuing contempt were not available because Milwaukee County (County) had ceased violating the Consent Decree on which the trial court based its finding of contempt, it did not have the benefit of our supreme court's holdings in Frisch v. Henrichs, 2007 WI 102 , 304 Wis.2d 1 , 736 N.W.2d 85 , decided in July 2007, while this appeal was pending. We conclude that the remedy of sanctions under Wis. Stat. § 785.04 for continuing contempt, as described in Frisch, is applicable to the contempt found by the trial court here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[section] 785.04(1)(a), specifically authorizes payment of money to compensate a victim for an "injury suffered by the party as the result of a contempt of court." Use of the past tense in the statute plainly authorizes payment for injuries that occurred in the past. The legislature apparently recognized that bringing a party into compliance with a court order did not necessarily cure the harm the victim of the noncompliance had already sustained because of the violation of the court order.”
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.