State v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably State v. Balliette (2011), Kolupar v. Wilde Pontiac Cadillac, Inc. (2004)
4 federal appellate · 35 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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · Coleman v. Thompson · Jones v. Barnes · 208 Wis. 2d 166 - In RE MARRIAGE OF COOK v. Cook
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because we conclude that the defendant should pursue an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim by petitioning the appellate court for a writ of habeas corpus, we expressly overrule any language in Flores that might sanction a contrary procedure. Evans, 273 Wis. 2d 192, ¶ 39 (alteration in original; citations and footnote omitted). We find this language particularly telling because the court had already characterized a Wis. Stat. § 974.06 postconviction motion as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f a defendant files a Knight petition and it is determined that his appellate counsel was deficient, his direct appeal rights may be reinstated. Thus, a defendant's right to appeal will not be extinguished; on the contrary, a Knight petition provides the appropriate vehicle to determine if counsel was deficient so that a defendant's direct appeal rights can be reinstated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ujtilizing § (Rule) 809.82(2), a procedural mechanism, as a substitute for a Knight petition for habeas corpus, so as to avoid making a substantive determination that a defendant was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel constitutes an erroneous exercise of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.