91 Wis. 2d 507 - State v. North’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2014
22 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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Benton v. Maryland · United States v. Benz · King v. United States · 46 Wis. 2d 93 - Hayes v. States
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[m]odification to correct sentencing flaws runs afoul of the double jeopardy provisions when the amending court seeks to increase sentences already being served.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Once a criminal defendant begins serving a sentence, a court may, in certain situations, properly modify or correct the sentence. Modification to correct sentencing flaws runs afoul of the double jeopardy provisions when the amending court seeks to increase sentences already being served. [The Wisconsin Supreme Court] has stated that double jeopardy situations arise in modifying sentences when the sentence is enhanced or increased.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]here is a possibility of a judicial abuse which would arise if trial courts had discretionary power to increase sentences which convicted persons were serving; and, if trial courts are allowed to increase a valid sentence to offset an erroneously lenient one, a sentenced person's rights to challenge an illegal sentence would be materially chilled.”
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.