206 Wis. 2d 91 - State v. Wideman’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably 214 Wis. 2d 628 - State v. Alexander (1997), Ex Parte Gonzales (1997)
28 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 Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · United States v. Lee · Toliver v. County of Sullivan · 124 Wis. 2d 628 - State v. Pitsch · 162 Wis. 2d 883 - State v. Martin
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the enhanced penalties under § 346.65(2) are penalties for misdemeanors, with relatively short periods of incarceration and moderate fines,”
3 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“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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lindholm
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.