Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 54 Wis. 2d 489 - Nelson v. State

54 Wis. 2d 489 - Nelson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

112
cited by 112 later decisions
1
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

112 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably 201 Wis. 2d 303 - State v. Bentley (1996), State v. Allen (2004)

112 state decisions

360197219801990200020102020decided

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 Anders v. California · State v. Reppin · 43 Wis. 2d 661 - Ernst v. State · 54 Wis. 2d 370 - Peterson v. State · 27 Wis. 2d 623 - State v. Strickland

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

  1. “to form its independent judgment after a review of the record and pleadings and to support its decision by written opinion.”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““[S]aid plea was not made voluntarily after proper advice from counsel and with a full understanding of the consequences of said plea but rather it was obtained unfairly [through] the ignorance and fear of said affiant.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “If the motion on its face alleges facts which would entitle the defendant to relief, the circuit court has no discretion and must hold an evidentiary hearing. Whether a motion alleges facts which, if true, would entitle a defendant to relief is a question of law that we review de novo. However, if the motion fails to allege sufficient facts, the circuit court has the discretion to deny a postconviction motion without a hearing based on any one of the three factors enumerated in Nelson . When reviewing a circuit court's discretionary act, this court uses the deferential erroneous exercise of discretion standard.”
    2 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.