99 Wis. 2d 22 - State v. Hess’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2010
7 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 97 Wis. 2d 193 - State v. White · 83 Wis. 2d 472 - Lofton v. State · 85 Wis. 2d 353 - State v. Wolter · 95 Wis. 2d 69 - State v. Pruitt · 85 Wis. 2d 172 - State v. Blaisdell
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court was merely attempting to elucidate that some additional element of culpability, whether it be denominated as wrongful, criminal, fraudulent, felonious, or wrongfully fraudulent, must be shown to sustain a criminal conviction for theft by contractor. All of these terms are used by our supreme court and this court to delineate the type of intent which distinguishes a criminal from the civil action. . .. From this looseness of language, we conclude that proof of an "intent to defraud" in an action for theft by contractor requires no more than the production of sufficient probative evidence to establish criminal intent. [Citation omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the defendant acted as a prime contractor; (2) the defendant received money for the improvement of land from the owner or a mortgagee; (3) the defendant intentionally used the money for purposes other than the payment of bona fide claims for labor or materials prior to the payment of such claims; (4) the use was without the owner or mortgagee's consent, and contrary to the defendant's authority; (5) the defendant knew the use was without consent and contrary to his authority; and (6) the defendant used the money with the intent to convert it to his own use or the use of another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“in an action for theft by contractor requires no more than the production of sufficient probative evidence to establish criminal intent. [Citation omitted.] Thus, to establish a violation of sec. 779.02(5), Stats., it is not necessary that the state show beyond a reasonable doubt that the prime contractor intended to permanently deprive laborers and materialmen of compensation. The intent establishing the violation is the intent to use moneys subject to a trust for purposes inconsistent with the trust.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sobkowiak
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.