State v. Wiplinger’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2020
24 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 Chapman v. State of California · Harrington v. California · Brown v. United States · Bradley v. J. F. Batte & Sons of Richmond, Inc. · Wiley v. Sowders
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One is where the defense attorney desires to admit that defendant is guilty of one of two charges in the hope of increasing his credibility with the jury and increasing the chance that the jury will acquit defendant on the other charge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Prtine · State v. Holland“if a defense counsel impliedly admits a defendant's guilt without the defendant's permission or acquiescence, the defendant should be given a new trial even if it can be said that the defendant would have been convicted in any event.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Sanders“the basic principle that a criminal defense attorney cannot admit his client's guilt to the jury without first obtaining the client's consent to this strategy”
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.