73 Wis. 2d 674 - Drinkwater v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably State v. Lopez (1984), 113 Wis. 2d 662 - State v. MacEmon (1983)
26 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 Santobello v. New York · 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary v. State · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist · 70 Wis. 2d 179 - Ocanas 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(i) The aggregate maximum of consecutive terms should not be permitted to exceed the term authorized for an habitual offender (section 3.3) for the most serious of the offenses involved. If there is no provision for an habitual offender for the offenses involved, there should be a ceiling on the aggregate of consecutive terms which is related to the severity of the offenses involved; and “(ii) The aggregate minimum of consecutive terms should be governed by the limitations stated in section 3.2; and “(iii) The court should not be authorized to impose a consecutive sentence until a presentence report (sections 4.1-4.5), sup plemented by a report of the examination of the defendant’s mental, emotional and physical condition (section 4.6), has been obtained and considered; and “(iv) Imposition of a consecutive sentence should require the affirmative action of the sentencing court. The court should be authorized to impose a consecutive sentence only after a finding that confinement for such a term is necessary in order to protect the public from further criminal conduct by the defendant. “These limitations should also apply to any sentence for an offense committed prior to the imposition of sentence for another offense, whether the previous sentence for the other offense has been served or remains to be served.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he legislature of this state has not seen fit to adopt the recommendation of the ABA. Rather it has provided that the imposition of multiple consecutive sentences is within the discretion of the trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“impose as many sentences as there are convictions and [to] provide that any such sentence be concurrent with or consecutive to any other sentence imposed at the same time or previously.”
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.