221 Wis. 2d 401 - State v. Sprosty’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 82 Wis. 2d 565 - Karow v. Milwaukee County Civil Service Commission · 209 Wis. 2d 310 - MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. State · 214 Wis. 2d 363 - State v. Keding · 203 Wis. 2d 392 - MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. State · 214 Wis. 2d 353 - Racine Education Ass'n v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. That the jury trial scheduled for August 12 and 13,1998 in the circuit Court for Lincoln County on the respondent's petition for discharge may be canceled; and 2. That August T. Krueger is an appropriate individual for supervised release pursuant to Section 980.08(5) Wis. Stats, and the court may enter an order pursuant to such statute providing that the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services and the Manitowoc Department under 51.42 shall prepare a plan that identifies the treatment and services, if any, that the person will receive in the community. The plan shall address the person's need, if any, for supervision, counseling, medication, community support services, residential services, vocational services and alcohol and other drug abuse treatment. 3. The county of the respondent's residence is Manitowoc. 4. The plan shall be presented to the court for its approval within sixty (60) days after the court enters this order. 5. The court shall conduct a hearing regarding the plan and both the state and the respondent are free at such hearing to urge other supervised release plans as either sees fit. 6. Pending the court hearing on the plan the respondent shall remain as a patient at his present residency, the Wisconsin Resource Center at Winnebago, Wisconsin.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The court shall grant the petition unless the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that the person is still a sexually violent person and that it is still substantially probable that the person will engage in acts of sexual violence if the person is not confined in a secure mental health unit or facility. In making a decision under this subsection, the court may consider, without limitation because of enumeration, the nature and circumstances of the behavior that was the basis of the allegation in the petition..., the person's mental history and present mental condition, where the person will live, how the person will support himself or herself and what arrangements are available to ensure that the person has access to and will participate in necessary treatment. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[O]nce a trial court has made a finding and ordered supervised release under § 980.08(4), it is required to order a treatment plan under § 980.08(5) and to ensure that the person is placed on supervised release in accordance with the plan. In some cases, the creation of facilities and services to provide the requisite treatment and to protect the public while a person is on supervised release in the community may be necessary, for which DHFS is responsible. Wis. Stat. § 980.12 (1).”
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.