State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
28 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 1116
Relies on 115 Wis. 2d 371 - State v. Gilbert · 75 Wis. 2d 244 - Klimas v. State · 124 Wis. 2d 372 - State v. Beets · 122 Wis. 2d 389 - State v. Gavigan · 65 Wis. 2d 415 - Byrd 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in connection with the course of conduct for which sentence was imposed,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“designed to prevent a defendant from serving more time than his sentence or his sentences call for.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“then the time spent in presentence custody must be credited against the ultimate sentence imposed. [I]n order for time in presentence custody to be credited to the sentence imposed, there must be a factual connection between the presentence custody and the sentence. In other words, in Elandis Johnson we rejected the defendant's reliance on a procedural connection between multiple concurrent sentences by emphasizing that it is the factual connection between custody and the conduct for which sentence is imposed that is controlling. 38 ¶ 57. Thus we must determine in the instant case whether a”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carter
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.