168 Wis. 2d 749 - State v. Hansen’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 176 Wis. 2d 230 - State v. James (1993), 2008 WI App 89 - State v. Hoppe (2009)
25 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 Darden v. Wainwright · 131 Wis. 2d 246 - State v. Bangert · 81 Wis. 2d 376 - State Ex Rel. Flowers v. Department of Health & Social Services · 141 Wis. 2d 823 - State v. Moederndorfer · 124 Wis. 2d 101 - State v. Kramsvogel
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the [Bangert] motion establishes a prima facie violation of Wis. Stat. § 971.08 or other court-mandated duties and makes the requisite allegations, the court must hold a postconviction evidentiary hearing at which the state is given an opportunity to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary despite the identified inadequacy of the plea colloquy.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“. . . . The plea hearing colloquy in this case establishes only that Hansen had read and understood the form; it does not establish that Hansen understood that by entering his no contest plea he was waiving his applicable constitutional rights.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Before the court accepts a plea of guilty or no contest, it shall do all of the following: (a) Address the defendant personally and determine that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the potential punishment if convicted. (b) Make such inquiry as satisfies it that the defendant in fact committed the crime charged. (c) Address the defendant personally and advise the defendant as follows: "If you are not a citizen of the United States of America, you are advised that a plea of guilty or no contest for the offense with which you are charged may result in deportation, the exclusion from admission to this country or the denial of naturalization, under federal law." (2) If a court fails to advise a defendant as required by suc. (1)(c) and a defendant later shows that the plea is likely to result in the defendant's deportation, exclusion from admission to this country or denial of naturalization, the court on the defendant's motion shall vacate any applicable judgment against the defendant and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea and enter another plea. This subsection does not limit the ability to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest on any other grounds.”
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.