86 Wis. 2d 603 - Locklear v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is clear that in his functions as a prosecutor he has great discretion in determining whether or not to prosecute. There is no obligation or duty upon a district attorney to prosecute all complaints that may be filed with him. While it is his duty to prosecute criminals, it is obvious that a great portion of the power of the state has been placed in his hands for him to use in the furtherance of justice, and this does not per se require prosecution in all cases where there appears to be a violation of the law no matter how trivial. In general, the district attorney is not answerable to any other officer of the state in respect to the manner in which he exercises those powers. True, he is answerable to the people, for if he fails in his trust he can be recalled or defeated at the polls. In the event he wilfully fails to perform his duties or is involved in crime, he may be suspended from office by the governor and removed for cause. These, however, are political remedies that go not to directing the performance of specific duties but rather go to the question of fitness for office. “The district attorney’s function, in general, is of a discretionary type, the performance of which is not com-pellable in mandamus. 27 C.J.S., p. 648, sec. 10, District and Prosecuting Attorneys, summarizes, correctly we believe, the broad nature of the discretion conferred upon the district attorney: “ ‘The prosecuting attorney has wide discretion in the manner in which his duty shall be perfo”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 97 Wis. 2d 473 - City of Janesville v. Wiskia · 94 Wis. 2d 128 - Sears v. State

2. ““. . .it must be noted that a 'prosecutor is accorded a broad range of discretion in the enforcement of ordinances and statutes.” (emphasis supplied). Id. at 609 . See also: State v. Johnson, 74 Wis.2d 169 , 246 N.W.2d 503 (1976).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 97 Wis. 2d 473 - City of Janesville v. Wiskia

3. “The test is not whether some inequality results from the classification, but whether there exists any reasonable basis to justify the classification.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Wis. 2d 180 - State v. Barman