85 Wis. 2d 172 - State v. Blaisdell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““By virtue of his office, business or employment, or as trustee or bailee, having possession or custody of money or of a negotiable security, instrument, paper or other negotiable writing of another, intentionally uses, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of such money, security, instrument, paper or writing without the owner’s consent, contrary to his authority, and with intent to convert to his own use or to the use of any other person except the owner. A refusal to deliver any money or a negotiable security, instrument, paper or other negotiable writing, which is in his possession or custody by virtue of his office, business or employment, or as trustee or bailee, upon demand of the person entitled to receive it, or as required by law, is prima facie evidence of an intent to convert to his own use within the meaning of this paragraph.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 105 Wis. 2d 261 - State v. Stepniewski · 99 Wis. 2d 22 - State v. Hess

2. “[I]ntent is a state of mind which can be evidenced only by words or conduct of the person who is claimed to have entertained it.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 WI App 191 - Tri-Tech Corp. of America v. Americomp Services, Inc. · 99 Wis. 2d 22 - State v. Hess

3. “When the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the test is whether the evidence adduced, believed, and rationally considered by the jury was sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation omitted.] Conversely stated, the test is whether when considered most favorably to the state and the conviction, the evidence is so insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of facts acting reasonably could be convinced to that degree of certitude which the law defines as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Citation omitted.] Furthermore, it is not necessary that this court be convinced of the defendant’s guilt but only that the court is satisfied the jury acting reasonably could be so convinced. [Citations omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 99 Wis. 2d 22 - State v. Hess