69 Wis. 2d 92 - State v. George’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

cited by 57 later decisions

states following

March 2020

most recently cited

57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably 96 Wis. 2d 48 - State v. Rabe (1980), 105 Wis. 2d 231 - State v. Clausen (1982)

57 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 Russell v. United States · Snow · Grant v. Phænix Life Insurance · 40 Wis. 2d 95 - Holesome v. State · McPhillips v. Blomgren

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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“it is within the state's discretion to elect whether to charge 'one continuous offense or a single offense or series of single offenses.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 386 Wis. 2d 314 - State v. Kloss · 199 Wis. 2d 575 - State v. Glenn
““In order to determine the sufficiency of the charge, two factors are considered. They are, whether the accusation is such that the defendant [may] determine whether it states an offense to which he is able to plead and prepare a defense and whether conviction or acquittal is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Conner · 73 Wis. 2d 685 - Blenski v. State
““In Anderson v. State (1936), 221 Wis. 78, 87 , 256 N. W. 210 , this court adopted the following test to determine whether, subsequent to a prosecution on an indictment (or complaint), another prosecution on a different indictment (or complaint) would entail a violation of the right against double jeopardy: if ‘ “. . . ‘facts alleged under either of the indictments would, if proved under the other, warrant a conviction under the latter,’ . . .” ’ double jeopardy is involved. . . .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Alexander M. Schultz · 72 Wis. 2d 754 - State v. Van Meter

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.