47 Wis. 2d 330 - Neely v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably 70 Wis. 2d 280 - Rosado v. State (1975), 76 Wis. 2d 286 - In INTEREST OF DH v. State (1977)
39 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 Gault · Williams v. People of State of New York · Burgett v. Texas · Mempa v. Rhay · 31 Wis. 2d 110 - Lock 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Not only is all relevant information to be brought to the attention of the sentencing judge, but considerable latitude is to be permitted trial judges in obtaining and considering all information that might aid in forming an intelligent and informed judgment as to the proper penalty to be imposed.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[h]ighly relevant, if not essential, to [the court's] selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant's life and characteristics”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . Since, however, the challenge goes to the basic purpose and permitted procedures in assembling presen-tence reports, we will deal with the issue as if the pre- sentence report had contained a record of commitments as well as arrests. “While the sentencing stage in the criminal process is a critical stage in the proceedings, it is to be kept in mind that the use of presentence reports is intended to assist the sentencing court in determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed in the particular case within limits fixed by law. The sentencing court has a twofold responsibility: To the individual found guilty and to the society which criminal laws are intended to protect. Not only is all relevant information to be brought to the attention of the sentencing judge, but considerable latitude is to be permitted trial judges in obtaining and considering all information that might aid in forming an intelligent and informed judgment as to the proper penalty to be imposed. “In insuring a broad scope of inquiry in presentence investigations, this court has held that even complaints as to other offenses may be brought to the trial court’s attention as ‘evidence of a pattern of behavior.’ We have no hesitancy in holding that the juvenile record of the defendant, as presented, was properly before the court as such evidence of a pattern of behavior. The defendant cites as controlling a recent United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the use in an information of an ”
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.