32 Wis. 2d 70 - Mueller v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 1982
22 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 Glasser v. United States · Isserman v. Ethics Committee of Essex County Bar Ass'n · Moulthrope v. Matus · People v. Bopp · People v. Fernandez
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Thus, both Glasser and Massey [Massey v. State (1965), 28 Wis. 2d 376 , 137 N. W. 2d 69 ] are in accord with the general rule that one attorney may represent two defendants indicted for participation in the same crime, unless the interests of the defendants are shown to be in conflict. « “. . . There must be shown either some actual conflict or some other persuasive reason why . . . did not effectively represent both defendants.” 28”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Petitioner argues that this holding requires an attorney dedicated solely to his interests, regardless of whether any conflict of interest exists. This interpretation of Glasser is too broad. Petitioner must make a showing that the dual representation impaired the effectiveness of his counsel.” (at 76)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Questions of fact are for the trial court to determine and it is not required to give full credence to the testimony of accused. . . .” 22 C. J. S., Criminal Law, p. 1161,sec. 421 (5).”
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.