Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2003 WIAPP 104 - State v. Howland

State v. Howland’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Santobello v. New York · 92 Wis. 2d 797 - State v. MacHner · 154 Wis. 2d 116 - State v. McQuay · State v. Williams

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

  1. “what it promised not to do directly, and it may not covertly convey to the trial court that a more severe sentence is warranted than that recommended.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The DOC does not function as an agent of either the State or the defense in fulfilling its PSI role but as an agent of the court in gathering information relating to a specific defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “An actionable breach must not be merely a technical breach; it must be a material and substantial breach.”
    1 later decision 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.