State v. Alston’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2012
10 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 Anders v. California · 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary v. State · 70 Wis. 2d 508 - In Re Hon. Charles E. Kading · 39 Wis. 2d 653 - Robertson Transportation Co. v. Public Service Commission · 54 Wis. 2d 370 - Peterson v. State
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We, therefore, hold that where an appeal has been filed in our court and where we have made a referral to the SPD in *Page 214 response to appellant's motion for appointment of counsel, where representation is discretionary, the SPD shall report its decision to our court within a reasonable period of time in a statement of sufficient detail to demonstrate that the SPD has properly exercised its discretion so that we may efficiently dispose of the motion for appointment of counsel and ultimately perform our appellate decision-making function. The scope of the statement shall depend upon the particular circumstances. The statement must contain more than the SPD's conclusions, and it shall explain the reasons for the determination made by the SPD, but it need not be the scope of an Anders no merit report.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Modifies] the duties of the State Public Defender to eliminate an existing statutory requirement that the office provide representation for all indigent persons attacking the conditions of their confinement. In addition [it provides] the State Public Defender with discretionary authority to determine whether a request from an indigent defendant or a court referral to prosecute a post-conviction or post-commitment remedy or a confinement challenge should be pursued by the office or not. Under current law, the office is required to handle such a request or referral if it is first satisfied there is arguable merit to the proceedings (except for confinement challenges which, as noted, is currently a mandatory duty of the office).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the context of this appeal, under this section [sec. 977.05 (4)(j)], the SPD has been delegated the statutory duty to exercise discretion with respect to representing Mr. Alston on an appeal of a denial of a sec. 974.06 motion. The existence of arguable merit to the appeal is the keystone to the exercise of such discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.