Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 Wis. 2d 656 - Hamiel v. State

92 Wis. 2d 656 - Hamiel v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
9
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Laster v. State (2009), 96 Wis. 2d 549 - Pickens v. State (1980)

39 state decisions

14019791980199020002010decided

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 Faretta v. California · 19 Cal. 3d 121 - People v. Windham · 52 Wis. 2d 144 - Rahhal v. State · Russell v. State · 45 Wis. 2d 606 - Bethards v. State

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

  1. “as though a . . . film, which has so far depicted merely the accused person's acts without stating what was his [or her] intention, had been suddenly stopped, and the audience were asked to say to what end those acts were directed. If there is only one reasonable answer to this question then the accused has done what amounts to an "attempt" to attain that end. If there is more than one reasonably possible answer, then the accused has not yet done enough.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[In the erime of attempt, it is primarily the acts of the accused which provide evidence of the requisite mental intent.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"In order for the defendant to be found guilty of attempted robbery pursuant to sec. 943.32 and sec. 939.32(2) (the general attempt statute), Stats., it must only be shown that: (1) the defendant’s actions in furtherance of the crime clearly demonstrate, under the circumstances that he had the requisite intent to commit the crime of attempted robbery; and (2) that having formed such intent the defendant had taken sufficient steps in furtherance of the crime so that it was improbable that he would have voluntarily terminated his participation in the commission of the crime.” 92 Wis. 2d at 666 .”
    2 later decisions 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.