83 Wis. 2d 150 - State v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

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.

1. ““The established test for determining whether two offenses are sufficiently distinguishable to permit the imposition of cumulative punishment was stated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932): “ ‘The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. . . .’ “This test emphasizes the elements of the two crimes. ‘If each requires proof that the other does not, the Block-burger test would be satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes. . . .’ Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n. 17, 95 S. Ct. 1284, 1294 , 43 L. Ed.2d 616 (1975).” “The Wisconsin test, which requires that the offenses be the same in law and in fact, is a form of the ‘same evidence rule.’ State v. Van Meter, 72 Wis.2d 754, 757, 758 , 242 N.W.2d 206 (1976); State v. George, 69 Wis.2d 92 , 230 N.W.2d 253 (1975). Sec. 939.71, Stats., codifies this rule.” State v. Ramirez, supra at 154.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 124 Wis. 2d 101 - State v. Kramsvogel · 85 Wis. 2d 182 - Haldane v. State

2. ““If an act forms the basis for a crime punishable under more than one statutory provision, prosecution may proceed under any or all such provisions.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 124 Wis. 2d 101 - State v. Kramsvogel · 96 Wis. 2d 48 - State v. Rabe

3. “If the state grants to its subordinate municipalities the right to enact penal-type ordinances triable in a municipal court, it has the duty to correlate the prosecutions so as not to offend the constitutional double jeopardy provisions. In a nut shell, a prosecution for an offense based upon a state statute bars a prosecution for the same offense based upon the same identical acts in a municipal court on a municipal ordinance and vice versa.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 124 Wis. 2d 101 - State v. Kramsvogel