206 Wis. 2d 135 - State v. Spaeth’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2021
1 federal appellate · 21 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 107 Wis. 2d 532 - State v. McAllister · 193 Wis. 2d 299 - Reginald D. v. State · 206 Wis. 2d 76 - Yauger v. SKIING ENTERPRISES, INC. · 119 Wis. 2d 651 - State v. Farr · 85 Wis. 2d 663 - Steeno v. State
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by placing before the court reliable documentary proof of each conviction. Id., 206 Wis. 2d at 148 , 556 N.W.2d at 733-734 . Devries seizes on the word "conviction”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“other competent proof in regard to the sentencing phase of a trial to describe the proof of prior convictions which is sufficient to apply the penalty enhancers. In Wideman , the court concluded that, even though the proof required to sustain enhanced penalties as a repeater under Wis. Stat. § 973.12 (1) did not apply to the penalty enhancement provisions of Wis. Stat. § 346.65 (2) that are at issue here due to the exclusion of chs. 341-49 offenses by Wis. Stat. § 939.62 (3)(a), the State was still required to prove the priors, either by an admission from the defendant or by presenting "certified copies of conviction or other competent proof.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[tjhere is no presumption of innocence accruing to the defendant regarding the previous conviction or convictions; . . . [however, the] defendant does have an opportunity to challenge the existence of the previous penalty-enhancing convictions before the judge prior to sentencing.”
2 later decisions 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.