State v. Liukonen’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
July 2014
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Santobello v. New York · 92 Wis. 2d 797 - State v. MacHner · State v. Williams · State v. Howard
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“plea agreement. See Sprang, 274 Wis. 2d 784, ¶ 28 ; see also Liukonen, 276 Wis. 2d 64, ¶ 21 . The Sprang decision teaches that even a strategically sound decision by defense counsel to forego an objection to a prosecutor's breach without consulting with the defendant constitutes deficient performance because it is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Miller“into a new agreement. See id., ¶ 27; see also State v. Liukonen, 2004 WI App 157, ¶ 21 , 276 Wis. 2d 64 , 686 N.W.2d 689 (reaffirming the principles articulated in Sprang). Thus, defense counsel must consult with the defendant and receive verification that the defendant wishes to proceed with the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Miller“nothing prevents a prosecutor from characterizing a defendant's conduct in harsh terms, even when such characterizations, viewed in isolation, might appear inconsistent with the agreed-on sentencing recommendation.”
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.