State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably State v. Carter (2010), State v. Johnson (2009)
30 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 State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County · Seider v. O'CONNELL · 136 Wis. 2d 333 - State v. Turner · 81 Wis. 2d 376 - State Ex Rel. Flowers v. Department of Health & Social Services · 75 Wis. 2d 244 - Klimas v. State
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"actual days spent in custody" includes, without limitation by enumeration, confinement related to an offense for which the offender is ultimately sentenced, or for any other sentence arising out of the same course of conduct, which occurs: 1. While the offender is awaiting trial; 2. While the offender is being tried; and 3. While the offender is awaiting imposition of sentence after trial.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson · State v. Carter“in connection with the course of conduct for which”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Statutory interpretation presents a question of law that we review de novo. Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute. If the meaning of the statute is plain, we ordinarily stop the inquiry. We interpret statutory language in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results. Where this process yields a plain meaning, the statute is not ambiguous and is applied according to this ascertainment of its meaning. If the language is ambiguous, however, we look beyond the language and examine the scope, history, context, and purpose of the statute.”
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.