Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 65 Wis. 2d 434 - State v. Seals

65 Wis. 2d 434 - State v. Seals’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
December 1976
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Anders v. California · 53 Wis. 2d 218 - Bautista v. State · 54 Wis. 2d 361 - State v. Tew · 65 Wis. 2d 415 - Byrd v. State · 61 Wis. 2d 236 - Day 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In the Byrd Case the majority of this court rejected the reasoning and result of cases holding that ‘. . . where, for whatever reason, a defendant remains in jail prior to his trial he must be given credit on the statutorily fixed sentence ultimately imposed for all periods of actual confinement. . . .’ [White v. Gilligan (D.C. Ohio 1972), 351 Fed. Supp. 1012, 1014. See also: Monsour v. Gray (D.C. Wis. 1973), 375 Fed. Supp. 786 and Taylor v. Gray (D.C. Wis. 1974), 375 Fed. Supp. 790.] Such holding would require an automatic offset, as to any prison sentence imposed, for all time spent in jail before the sentence was imposed, including both preconviction confinement due to inability or disinclination to post bail or time spent in jail following conviction but before sentencing. Instead, the majority of this court adopted the rule of a federal district court decision finding the essential question to be ‘. . . whether the time a prisoner spends in custody prior to trial when added to the sentence to be served upon commitment can total more than the statutory maximum punishment for the crime involved. . . [Culp v. Bounds (D.C.N.C. 1971), 325 Fed. Supp. 416 at pages 418, 419.] The federal district court holding, under the rule adopted by the majority of this court, is limited (1) to time spent in custody before conviction, and (2) to cases where such time, added to the sentence imposed, exceeds the statutory maximum punishment. Where the preconviction time in jail added to the s”
    2 later decisions 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.