383 Wis. 2d 546 - State v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

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

1. “The [identity theft] statute does not require an express verbal representation from the offerer that the document is authorized. Rather, it requires that the user "represent" that the user is "acting with the authorization or consent of the entity." Stewart's actions did just that.... Stewart's actions fit the statutory language: by the act of presenting the documents to show the PSI writer his personal history and character, Stewart was implicitly saying they were real and he had consent to use them. The only reasonable inference for the PSI writer to draw is that Stewart had permission from the universities and the VA to use them.... Stewart availed himself of that expectation, and he cannot now protest that he committed no crime because he made no such explicit verbal representation. Therefore, contrary to Stewart's argument, his presentation of the documents in question as authentic does satisfy the requirement that Stewart was representing that he was acting with the entities' consent. Finally, to hold that the statute includes a requirement of an express verbal representation about the entity's consent would read too much into the statute, especially in a context where such representations would not be ordinarily necessary or expected.... [Stewart's proposed] interpretation would obstruct rather than carry out the legislature's intent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 384 Wis. 2d 111 - State v. Mason

2. “• Section 943.203(2) provides: "by representing that the person is the entity or is acting with the authorization or consent of the entity." • Section 943.201(2) provides: "by representing that he or she is the individual, [or] that he or she is acting with the authorization or consent of the individual."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 384 Wis. 2d 111 - State v. Mason

3. “[ Section 943.203 ] protects the personal identifying information or documents belonging to an entity , [while] the companion statute [ WIS. STAT. § 943.201 ] protects the personal identifying information or documents belonging to an individual .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 384 Wis. 2d 111 - State v. Mason