Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 Wis. 2d 1 - State v. Velez

224 Wis. 2d 1 - State v. Velez’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably State v. Allen (2004), State v. Balliette (2011)

30 state decisions

180199920002010decided

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 Mullaney v. Wilbur · State v. Pettit · 201 Wis. 2d 303 - State v. Bentley · United States v. Sophie · 210 Wis. 2d 597 - State v. Caban

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.

  1. “An evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the hearing raises a significant, disputed factual issue.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[A]lthough a defendant may be unable to allege sufficient specific facts to warrant relief, a trial court must provide the defendant the opportunity to develop the factual record where the motion, alleged facts, inferences fairly drawn from the alleged facts, offers of proof, and defense counsel's legal theory satisfy the court of a reasonable possibility that an evidentiary hearing will establish the factual basis on which the defendant's motion may prevail.”
    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.