64 Wis. 2d 54 - Scott v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably 136 Wis. 2d 92 - State v. Perry (1987), 102 Wis. 2d 461 - Grobarchik v. State (1981)
42 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 Ex parte Lange · 34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty v. State · 49 Wis. 2d 683 - Nicholas v. State · 57 Wis. 2d 572 - State v. Foellmi · 39 Wis. 2d 461 - State v. Leonard
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"'... [T]he Government argues that an exception should be recognized in cases such as this where the alteration of the sentence was undertaken solely to conform to the original intention of the trial judge and the error in the original sentence was due solely to an inadvertent transposition of the numbers. Were we clairvoyant and able to say for certain in every case what the trial judge really 'intended,’ this argument might be persuasive. Being merely mortals however, we must refrain from such delicate undertakings, and we refuse to sanction a procedure that encourages such an inquiry.’ Id. at page 836.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“alone or simply because it has thought the matter over and has second thoughts. It must base its modification on”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When I was driving home last night, it became clear to me that I had not accomplished the goal that I set out to do in the sentencing of this matter. ... [In sentencing the defendant,] I tried to find some fairness in treating the two people involved in the situation the same.. . . You were already in jail for another matter for five years. The other gentleman received ten years for his offense. . .. [M]y intent at the time was a sentence of seven and one-half years, because if I sentenced you to seven and one-half years, I was doing two very important things, I thought, but I didn't communicate them to you. I was giving you less than what Mr. Porter got for the same offense, and there were reasons for that, and those reasons were in your favor .... If I gave you just five years, you would be receiving a ten year sentence the same as Mr. Porter. But Mr. Porter was receiving ten years for one offense, and you were serving ten years for two offenses. That was not fair to the community. So my notes indicated that you should be sentenced to seven and one-half years for this offense, for the March 6, 1969 robbery. And that was my intent yesterday and always has been.”
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.