Honomichl v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2022
20 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 Albrecht v. United States · Englert v. S. Birch & Sons Construction Co. · Nachtigall v. Erickson · 31 Wis. 2d 87 - Pillsbury v. State · State v. Sinnott
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement, consent, or waiver. (Citation omitted.) A reviewing court is required to consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction even where it is not raised below in order to avoid an unwarranted exercise of judicial authority.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lyerla“informations were not filed by the State on either offense.” Honomichl, 333 N.W.2d at 798 . In Mee I,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“formal and sufficient indictment or information”
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.