Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 87 Wis. 2d 1 - State v. Balestrieri

87 Wis. 2d 1 - State v. Balestrieri’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
December 1985
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 75 Wis. 2d 116 - Falkner v. Northern States Power Co. · 234 Mo. App. 716 - In Re Perkins v. Brownlee · 68 Wis. 2d 523 - State v. Lambert · Lockwood v. Belle City Street Railway Co. · 15 Wis. 2d 430 - Williams v. City of Madison

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

  1. ““The history of the statute [100.26(3)] makes it plain that the legislature intended that there be no excuse for failing to follow the rules. With the public outcry concerning the home improvement trade in the last several years, one would think that anyone connected with the home improvement trade would first and foremost make sure that they were following the rules explicitly. In this case, despite the clear and unconfusing guidelines mentioned in the administrative code relating to preparing a contract with consumers, [the defendant] deviated from the directions. That imprudence is specifically what the statute was designed to prevent. There is no excuse for failing to follow the code.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Any person who violates s. 100.15, 100.19, 100.20 or 100.22, or who intentionally refuses, neglects or fails to obey any regulation made under s. 100.19 or 100.20, shall, for each offense, be fined not less than $25 nor more than $5,000, or imprisoned in the county jail for not more than one year or both.””
    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.