Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 61 Wis. 2d 262 - Hardison v. State

61 Wis. 2d 262 - Hardison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2023

14 state decisions

100197319801990200020102020decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Comfort v. California · 60 Wis. 2d 683 - State v. Cydzik · 49 Wis. 2d 683 - Nicholas v. State · 52 Wis. 2d 71 - Hawpetoss 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The information charged the defendant with first-degree murder as a party to the crime. Defendant claims error in the failure of the information to set forth the specific subsection of the party-to-a-crime statute relied upon. The statute does not require that a defendant be specifically charged with violation of the section, stating instead, ‘Whoever is concerned in the commission of a crime is a principal.’ This court has held that it is not mandatory to refer to the party-to-a-crime section, giving as one reason the fact that ‘it is often difficult to tell in advance of filing the information whether to charge the defendant as the principal or under this section as a party to the crime.’ This reason applies to reference to a subsection at least as much and as well as it does to reference to the section. Where reference to the party-to-a-crime section is not mandatory, we see no reason to hold referring to a particular subsection to be required.””
    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.