Francis v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that charges were properly joined because the acts or transactions “exhibit[ed] the same modus operandi” and, therefore, constituted parts of a common scheme or plan

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Leach
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 1985-06-28· cited 65×
• State v. Hammer
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 2000-07-11· cited 63×
• State v. King
  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin· 1984-07-06· cited 13×
• State v. Davis
  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin· 2006-01-24· cited 6×
• State v. Dixon
  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin· 2004-02-17
• State v. Max E. Bell
  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin· 2025-11-13

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Nathan L. Drew v. United States
  D.C. Circuit· 1964-02-13· cited 860×
• Robert G. Baker v. United States
  D.C. Circuit· 1968-08-09· cited 276×
• People v. Matson
  California Supreme Court· 1974-12-09· cited 126×
• John Richard Bayless v. United States
  Ninth Circuit· 1967-07-19· cited 109×
• State v. Tarrell
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 1976-12-14· cited 103×
• United States v. Peter W. Weber
  Third Circuit· 1971-04-26· cited 100×
• United States v. William Harvey Park
  Fifth Circuit· 1976-05-14· cited 89×
• Peters v. State
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 1975-09-30· cited 67×
• United States v. Dennis O. Miller
  D.C. Circuit· 1971-03-19· cited 49×
• Sanford v. State
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 1977-02-15· cited 47×
• Lambert v. State
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 1976-07-12· cited 27×
• United States v. Thomas E. Carter, A/K/A Thomas L. Carter
  D.C. Circuit· 1973-01-12· cited 16×
• United States v. Scott
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 1971-04-22· cited 6×