State v. Henley’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
46 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on 185 Wis. 2d 168 - State v. Escalona-Naranjo · 144 Wis. 2d 388 - State v. Schumacher · 168 Wis. 2d 509 - State v. Knight · 54 Wis. 2d 370 - Peterson v. State · 98 Wis. 2d 569 - State v. Braunsdorf
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Wisconsin courts have generally exercised inherent authority in three areas: (1) to guard against actions that would impair the powers or efficacy of the courts or judicial system; (2) to regulate the bench and bar; and (3) to ensure the efficient and effective functioning of the court, and to fairly administer justice.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] power is inherent when it 'is one without which a court cannot properly function.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“inherent, implied and incidental powers.”
5 later decisions 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.