64 Wis. 2d 36 - Walton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2018
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 49 Wis. 2d 246 - State v. Melvin · 54 Wis. 2d 361 - State v. Tew · 53 Wis. 2d 776 - State v. Zdiarstek · 50 Wis. 2d 395 - State v. Schilz · 55 Wis. 2d 1 - Moore 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.
“As stated in State v. Lewis, supra, force is not to be confounded with violence. In the instant case, the testimony of the victim, corroborated by two witnesses, reflects that the pouch was forcibly taken from her. There is no dispute in the evidence concerning this element of the crime. Although actual force, as distinguished from constructive force, implies personal violence, the degree of force used is immaterial, so long as it is sufficient to compel the victim to part with his property. Any struggle to obtain the property, any injury to the victim, or any resistance on his part that requires greater ■counterattack to effect the taking, is ordinarily regarded as sufficient to satisfy the requirement. The same is true if the force used, although insufficient actually to frighten the victim, surprises him into yielding.... Our attention has been directed to what might be described' as conflicting authority of various jurisdictions in considering crimes relating to “purse snatching.” We do not deem it appropriate to make a general statement relating to all circumstances in all “purse snatching” ■ situations. In the instant case, the degree of force used by the defendant is immaterial. The victim was aware of the defendant following her for some distance, she was fearful and apprehensive, she sought safety in front of- a restaurant in the presence of two male customers. When confronted by the defendant, a twenty-six-year-old male, this sixty-four-year-old bookkeeper had reaso”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The trial court seems to have confounded force with violence. Force, in legal contemplation, does' not always mean physical violence. Thus, in prosecutions for assault and battery, any touching of the person or clothing of another in anger, or even spitting upon another, constitutes a battery. In legal contemplation such touching for a hostile or wrongful purpose is the application of force.... The law can draw no line between the different degrees of force.... Larceny from the person can only be accomplished by the use of some degree of force within the definition of force above given. There may be no actual violence; certainly none is generally intended. But there will necessarily be some slight touching of the clothing, person, or belongings attached to the person of another, which, though intended to be so slight that it will be unnoticed, is nevertheless a hostile and wrongful touch, and amounts to legal force.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We are not persuaded by this argument. The victim was clutching the pouch between her arms and her stomach. It is undisputed that it was taken from her by force and in such á manner as to overcome any physical resistance or power of resistance by the victim. These facts-do hot constitute a theft from a person ... within the contemplation of sec. 943.20.”
2 later decisions 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.