Pulaski v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

cited by 85 later decisions

states following

January 2016

most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 82 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably 43 Wis. 2d 661 - Ernst v. State (1969), 57 Wis. 2d 543 - State v. Harper (1973)

3 federal appellate · 82 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 Haynes v. Washington · Kercheval v. United States · Fikes v. State of Alabama · Cicenia v. Lagay · Turner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

““ ‘. . . on timely application, the court will vacate a plea of guilty shown to have been unfairly obtained or given through ignorance, fear or inadvertence ....’” (Quoting from Kercheval v. United States (1927), 274 U. S. 220 , 47 Sup. Ct. 582, 71 L. Ed. 1009 .)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 40 Wis. 2d 666 - LeFebre v. State · 49 Wis. 2d 551 - State v. Froelich
““Consolidation of charges of crime pending in several counties is not automatic and requires the initiative of the accused. Under sec. 956.01 (13), Stats., a person who admits a felony in a county in which he is in custody and also in another county may apply to the district attorney of the county in which he is in custody to be charged with those crimes so he may plead guilty and be sentenced for them in the county of custody. There is no requirement that all charges must be consolidated if an application is made; the statute leaves to the discretion of the district attorney in the other county whether or not to consent to such a consolidation.” prosecution or conviction of the defendant in this state for any such admitted crime.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 40 Wis. 2d 666 - LeFebre v. State · 49 Wis. 2d 455 - Johnson v. State
““There may be an exceptional case or two but normally for a trial court to entertain a motion made beyond a year would seem to be an abuse of discretion.” (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 144.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Melisa Valadez · 93 Wis. 2d 361 - State v. Schill

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.