74 Wis. 2d 169 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Commonwealth v. King (1977), 93 Wis. 2d 287 - MacK v. State (1980)
35 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 Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Reed v. Reed · United States v. Falk · 56 Wis. 2d 7 - Just v. Marinette County · 42 Wis. 2d 368 - State Ex Rel. Kurkierewicz v. Cannon
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is clear that in his functions as a prosecutor he has great discretion in determining whether or not to prosecute. There is no obligation or duty upon a district attorney to prosecute all complaints that may be filed with him. While it is his duty to prosecute criminals, it is obvious that a great portion of the power of the state has been placed in his hands for him to use in the furtherance of justice, and this does not per se require prosecution in all cases where there appears to be a violation of the law no matter how trivial. In general, the district attorney is not answerable to any other officer of the state in respect to the manner in which he exercises those powers. True, he is answerable to the people, for if he fails in his trust he can be recalled or defeated at the polls. In the event he wilfully fails to perform his duties or is involved in crime, he may be suspended from office by the governor and removed for cause. These, however, are political remedies that go not to directing the performance of specific duties but rather go to the question of fitness for office. “The district attorney’s function, in general, is of a discretionary type, the performance of which is not com-pellable in mandamus. 27 C.J.S., p. 648, sec. 10, District and Prosecuting Attorneys, summarizes, correctly we believe, the broad nature of the discretion conferred upon the district attorney: “ ‘The prosecuting attorney has wide discretion in the manner in which his duty shall be perfo”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“the burden to show an exercise of valid prosecutorial discretion will shift to the state.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The district attorney in Wisconsin is a constitutional officer and is endowed with a discretion that approaches the quasi judicial. State v. Peterson, 195 Wis. 351, 359 , 218 N.W. 367 (1928).” supra at 42.”
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.