224 Wis. 2d 116 - State v. Zarnke’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Dean Foods Company v. Ben Brancel, Secretary of the Wisconsin Dept. Of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (1999), Wisconsin v. Laxton (2002)
40 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Miller v. California · Patterson v. New York · New York v. Ferber · Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]lthough this Court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of . . . judicially rewriting it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Possession of child pornography, (lm) Whoever possesses any undeveloped film, photographic negative, photograph, motion picture, videotape, or other recording of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct under all of the following circumstances is guilty of a Class I felony: (a) The person knows that he or she possesses the material. (b) The person knows the character and content of the sexually explicit conduct in the material. (c) The person knows or reasonably should know that the child engaged in sexually explicit conduct has not attained the age of 18 years.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Schaefer“The provisions of the statutes are severable. The provisions of any session law are severable. If any provision of the statutes or of a session law is invalid, or if the application of either to any person or circumstance is invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.”
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.