Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 268 N.W.2d 210 - State v. Brant

State v. Brant’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
June 1995
most recently cited

3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1995

3 state decisions

20197819801990decided

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 State v. Sisco · Brainard v. State · State v. Kendall · Commonwealth v. Tilley · State v. Myers

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We conclude that . . . [the trial court erred in considering the record of a separate case involving LeRoy Rand when determining defendant’s degree of guilt]. We see no necessity however for a new degree-of-guilt hearing. We therefore return the case to district court for a degree-of-guilt hearing before the same district judge, on the record of the prior degree-of-guilt hearing but with additional argument by counsel should either or both of them desire argument. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge is to render a decision on the degree of guilt on the record of the prior degree-of-guilt hearing without consideration of the record or judgment in Rand’s case, and is to pronounce sentence accordingly. Appeal may be taken from the decision on the degree of guilt and from the sentence in accordance with ch. 814 of the code (1977 Supp.) and Division II of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[D]efendant Duane E. Brant and one LeRoy Rand, while riding in defendant's car, decided to rob the attendant at a Quik Trip store. Defendant drove to the store, Rand took defendant's shotgun and entered the store to hold up the attendant, Rand shot and killed the attendant in the course of the robbery, defendant panicked and drove away, Rand later rejoined defendant, and the two split about $100 which the robbery netted and also retrieved the shotgun.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[Defendant Brant was entitled to have his degree of guilt and sentence' determined on the basis of the record in his own case. The record of conviction or acquittal in another case to which the accused was not a party is not ordinarily admissible to establish facts involved in such conviction or acquittal.”
    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.