State v. Vanbeek’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
November 2022
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 198 Wis. 2d 756 - State v. Schmaling · 190 Wis. 2d 252 - State v. Kennedy · 181 Wis. 2d 978 - State v. Evans · State v. Ortiz · 218 Wis. 2d 152 - State v. Howard-Hastings
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he fact remains that it was the police, not the city, who were the direct and actual victims of Ortiz's crimes. Ortiz did not threaten to injure the city—he threatened to injure the police officers. Ortiz did not fail to comply with an attempt by the city to take him into custody—he failed to comply with the police effort to take him into custody. Ortiz did not obstruct the city—he obstructed the police. And finally, Ortiz's disorderly conduct was not targeted at the city—it was targeted at the police.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This argument misses the mark. Vanbeek conveyed a false threat to destroy school district property, which resulted in an evacuation and a direct loss to the school district. There is no doubt that the conduct involved in the crime considered at sentencing—conveying a threat to destroy school district property by means of explosives—was directed at the school district. Vanbeek left the bomb scare note on school district property and the note threatened to destroy school district property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“whether the government (on behalf of law enforcement agencies) or police officers were direct victims, and we determined that the government claimant was not a direct victim entitled to restitution.”
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.