133 Wis. 2d 207 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

128

cited by 128 later decisions

states following

May 2022

most recently cited

128 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 128 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Vollmer v. Luety (1990), 227 Wis. 2d 758 - State v. Erickson (1999)

128 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 Strickland v. Washington · McMann v. Richardson · Dusky v. United States · Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri

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

“outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Yerke · State v. Tobatto
“First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that [he or she] was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair [trial], a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction . . . resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. State v. Johnson, 133 Wis. 2d 207, 216-17 , 395 N.W.2d 176, 181 (1986).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 139 Wis. 2d 353 - State v. Harvey · 170 Wis. 2d 661 - State v. Guck
“there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Yerke · 386 Wis. 2d 351 - State v. Bostick

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.