54 Wis. 2d 651 - State v. Barclay’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 1997
4 federal appellate · 14 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 41 Wis. 2d 552 - Strait v. State · 45 Wis. 2d 606 - Bethards v. State · 43 Wis. 2d 465 - State v. Holmstrom · Jensen v. State · State v. Reynolds
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the defendant reached through the window he had broken and unlatched the window lock, an entry was made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In all three cases, entry was forcible, a usual circumstance in after-closing hour, tavern-restaurant burglaries. In all three situations, the manner of entry involved damage to the building, a broken window in two cases, a smashed door in the third, a situation negativing either a casual or friendly visit. In all three prosecutions, the place entered was a tavern-restaurant type enterprise where cash as well as merchandise and equipment were likely prizes for the would-be burglar. In all three break-ins, the place of entry was away from the front entrance at a place less likely to be observed by passersby. In all three attempted burglaries, the time of entry was after closing hours and in the early morning when the likelihood of interruption was at a minimum. In all three trials, it was established that the defendant sought to evade apprehension or arrest by the police. In all three cases, such surrounding circumstances were more than adequate to warrant the juries in finding that an intent to steal existed. In all three cases, such additional circumstances associated with the three unlawful entries were ‘. . . sufficient to permit a reasonable person to conclude the defendant [s] entered with an intent to steal.’ And that is the test.” Id., 54 Wis.2d at 655-56 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““While it remains the law in this state that intent to steal will not be inferred from the fact of entry alone, it is also the law that ‘. . . additional circumstances such as time, nature of place entered, method of entry, identity of the accused and other circumstances, without proof of actual larceny, can be sufficient to permit a reasonable person to conclude the defendant entered with an intent to steal.’ ””
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.