63 Wis. 2d 254 - Flatley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably 118 Wis. 2d 339 - State v. Wickstrom (1984), 170 W. Va. 779 - Manchin v. Browning (1982)
2 federal appellate · 22 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 18 Wis. 2d 529 - State Ex Rel. Jackson v. Coffey · 38 Wis. 2d 159 - State Ex Rel. Beck v. Duffy · State v. Snyder · Boyle v. Larzelere · 33 Wis. 2d 367 - State Central Credit Union v. Bayley
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'is devoid of the inherent power to initiate and prosecute litigation intended to protect or promote the interests of the state or its citizens and cannot act for the state as parens patriae.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . The power to grant relief from such a final order more than sixty days after the end of the term of the court at which it was rendered is limited solely to cases of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Loomis v. Rice (1875), 37 Wis. 262 ; Estate of Callahan (1947), 251 Wis. 247, 257 , 29 N.W.2d 352 ; Glassner v. Medical Realty, Inc. (1964), 22 Wis.2d 344, 351 , 126 N.W.2d 68 ; Tuszkiewicz v. Lepins (1968), 41 Wis.2d 102, 105 , 163 N.W.2d 188 . Since no such allegations were made, it was error to grant relief. “Similarly, any action by the trial court under sec. 269.46(1), Stats., is limited to a period of one year after notice of the judgment or order. Tuszkiewicz v. Lepins, supra. After the passage of that period of time, the trial court is without subject matter jurisdiction to take any further action, [citations omitted].” Id. at 266.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.