2009 WI App 2 - State v. Eaglefeathers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[M]ultiplicity claims are examined under a two-part test. The first part asks whether the offenses are identical in law and in fact. The second part examines whether the legislature intended to authorize multiple punishments. If it is determined under the first part of the test that the charged offenses are identical in both law and fact, a presumption arises under the second part of the test that the legislature did not intend to authorize cumulative punishments. Conversely, if the charged offenses are not identical in law and in fact, a presumption arises that the legislature did not intend to preclude cumulative punishments.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2009 WI App 161 - State v. Patterson

2. “This presumption places the burden of proof on the defendant to show that the legislature intended to preclude cumulative punishments, and 'can only be rebutted by clear legislative intent to the contrary.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 369 Wis. 2d 211 - State v. Berry

3. “[W]hen multiple charged offenses are different in fact or in law, a presumption arises that the legislature did not intend to preclude cumulative punishments.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 369 Wis. 2d 211 - State v. Berry