44 Wis. 2d 454 - Cheney v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently February 2010 · most notably 54 Wis. 2d 361 - State v. Tew (1972), 70 Wis. 2d 368 - Melby v. State (1975)
85 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 Jencks v. United States · Palermo v. United States · State v. Spreigl · 34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty v. State · Jung v. State
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It seems to us that this question should be treated in terms of strong policy against interference with the discretion of the trial court in passing sentence and not of lack of power to do so. We are very reluctant so to interfere. The trial court has great advantages in considering all relevant factors, including the opportunity to observe the defendant, which it always has in felony cases and ordinarily in other cases. “. . . We consider that we have the power to review sentences to determine whether an abuse of discretion clearly appears, and to remand for resentencing or to modify a sentence. We withdraw all past statements indicating that the court lacks power to do so, although it will be a rare case where the power will be used.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““While it is now settled that this court has the power to review the sentence imposed by the trial court, it is equally well established that it does so only with the utmost reluctance and only in unusual cases. [See, State v. Tuttle (1963), 21 Wis. 2d 147 , 124 N. W. 2d 9 ; Jung v. State (1966), 32 Wis. 2d 541 , 145 N. W. 2d 684 ; Nelson v. State (1967), 35 Wis. 2d 797 , 151 N. W. 2d 694 ; Price v. State (1967), 37 Wis. 2d 117 , 154 N. W. 2d 222 ; State v. Beal (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 607 , 162 N. W. 2d 640 .] The rationale is that the trial court has the advantage in considering all relevant factors, including the opportunity to observe the defendant.” Cheney v. State (1969), 44 Wis. 2d 454, 469 , 171 N. W. 2d 339 , 174 N. W. 2d 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.