221 Wis. 2d 418 - State v. Shea’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2020
14 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 Strickland v. Washington · 153 Wis. 2d 493 - State v. Poellinger · 124 Wis. 2d 525 - State v. Dyess · 196 Wis. 2d 650 - Harnischfeger Corp. v. Labor & Industry Review Commission · 144 Wis. 2d 388 - State v. Schumacher
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Forgery. (1) Whoever with intent to defraud falsely makes or alters a writing or object of any of the following kinds so that it purports to have been made by another, or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority, is guilty of a Class C felony: (a) A writing or object whereby legal rights or obligations are created, terminated or transferred, or any writing commonly relied upon in business or commercial transactions as evidence of debt or property rights .... (2) Whoever utters as genuine or possesses with intent to utter as false or as genuine any forged writing or object mentioned in sub. (1), knowing it to have been thus falsely made or altered, is guilty of a Class C felony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The ultimate goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Our first inquiry is always to the language of the statute. If a statute is clear on its face, our inquiry ends, for we are prohibited from looking beyond the unambiguous language used by the legislature. However, if the language is ambiguous, we may look to the history, scope, context, subject matter, and object of the statute to discern legislative intent. Statutory language is ambiguous if reasonably well-informed individuals could differ as to its meaning.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We have frequently recognized dictionaries as an appropriate source of such usage. See State v. McCoy, 143 Wis. 2d 274, 287 , 421 N.W.2d 107, 111 (1988); cf. State v. Shea, 221 Wis. 2d 418, 426-27 , 585 N.W.2d 662, 665 (Ct. App. 1998) (use of dictiona ries does not mean statute is ambiguous). The dictionary defines”
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.