97 Wis. 2d 175 - May v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 36 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"939.05 Parties to crime. (1) Whoever is concerned in the commission of a crime is a principal and may be charged with and convicted of the commission of the crime although he did not directly commit it and although the person who directly committed it has not been convicted or has been convicted of some other degree of the crime or of some other crime based on the same act. " (2) A person is concerned in the commission of the crime if he: " (a) Directly commits the crime; or " (b) Intentionally aids and abets the commission of it; or " (c) Is a party to a conspiracy with another to commit it.. . . Such a party is also concerned in the commission of any other crime which is committed in pursuance of the intended crime and which under the circumstances is a natural and probable consequence of the, intended crime. This paragraph does not apply to a person who voluntarily changes his mind and no longer desires that the crime be committed and notifies the other parties concerned of his withdrawal within a reasonable time before the commission of the crime so as to allow the others to withdraw."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 105 Wis. 2d 553 - State v. Stanfield · 130 Wis. 2d 34 - State v. Zelenka

2. ““The defendant said ... that in a couple of days he would have a quantity of ‘black Cadillacs’ which are a stronger form of ‘speed.’ [The undercover agent] asked if he could stop by in a couple of days. The defendant indicated that he could and that if he had the ‘black Cad-illacs,’ they could make a deal.... Two days later [the undercover agent] went to the [defendant’s] apartment ... and ... asked [the defendant’s roommate] if the ‘black Cadillacs’ which he had discussed with the defendant had arrived. ... [The undercover agent later] telephoned the apartment.... When the defendant came to the phone, [the undercover agent] asked him if he had the ‘black Cadillacs,’ and the defendant said he did, but that he had only ten of them. The defendant said the price was $3.50 a piece and that [the undercover agent] could come over and get them. [The undercover agent] arrived at the apartment ... and he said he was the person interested in the ‘black Cadillacs.’ [The defendant’s roommate] showed the capsules to [the undercover agent] and he said he was only interested in the ‘black Cadillacs’ and wanted ten of them. [The defendant’s roommate] took the black capsules from the container, wrapped them in plastic wrap and gave them to [the undercover agent], who gave her $35.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Vega

3. “Immediately after the . . . telephone conversation with the officer he changed his mind about going ahead with that transaction. He told Ms. Olson that she should abandon the transaction because he believed the caller was a police officer. [May] was present when the officer arrived but did not in any way involve himself in the delivery and received nothing from the transaction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 190 Wis. 2d 155 - State v. Glenn