green
Positive treatment
Under Fire
Quoted verbatim 3×
21.6 score
“ome circumstances will make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream will support an exigency justifying a properly conducted warrantless blood test.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this
case.
This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Concurrence
Scott Smith v. Greg Kleynerman
(2017)
“Douglas-Hanson Co., Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co., 2000 WI 22 , 233 Wis. 2d 276 , 607 N.W.2d 621 (on petition for review). 80.”
Concurrence
State v. Sanders
(2008)
“The jailable/nonjailable distinction noted by the authorities above correlates with this court's discussion of Welsh in State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 , a pre-McArthur case.”
Dissent
State v. Nicolas Subdiaz-Osorio
(2014)
“See, e.g., State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶ 26 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 ; State v. Robinson, 2010 WI 80, ¶ 31 , 327 Wis. 2d 302 , 786 N.W.2d 463 (in which such signs appeared).”
Dissent
State v. Robinson
(2010)
“See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24 , ¶ 28 n.7, 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 ("It is also important to note that this is not a situation in which the exigency was created by the police themselves, which would generally not justify a warrantless search of a home.") However, citing a Second Circuit opinion that has been roundly criticized, 7 the majority determines that "when law enforcement…”
Dissent
State v. Krajewski
(2002)
“See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶ 17 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 . ¶ 77.”
Concurrence
Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc.
(2000)
“Corp. v. Kemutec, Inc., 66 F.Supp.2d 937, 969 (E.D.Wis.1999) (“When contractual expectations are frustrated because of a defect in the subject matter of the contract, a party’s remedy lies exclusively in contract.”); Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 229 Wis.2d 132 , 598 N.W.2d 262, 267 (1999) (same), aff'd, 233 Wis.2d 276 , 607 N.W.2d 621 (2000) (per curiam); Theuerkauf v. United…”
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Finley
when the strong smell of marijuana is in the air,' there is a 'fair probability' that marijuana is present. this is common sense.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
McGurk v. State
marijuana and other drugs are highly destructible
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Michael R. Tullberg
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
ome circumstances will make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream will support an exigency justifying a properly conducted warrantless blood test.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Evans v. Commonwealth
App. 2006); State v. Rodriguez, 945 A.2d 676, 681-83 (N.H. 2008); State v. Luong, 977 N.E.2d 1075 , 1081-82 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012); State v. Hughes, 607 N.W.2d 621, 628 (Wis. 2000); Rideout v. State, 122 P.3d 201, 207-08 (Wyo. 2005); cf. United States v. Moses, 540 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Esparza, 162 F.3d 978, 980 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Vasquez, 638 F.2d 507, 531-32 (2d Cir. 1980). 5 The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has twice addressed this exact scenario.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James White v. Tammie Stanley
Compare United States v. McMillion, 472 Fed.Appx. 138, 141 (3d Cir.2012) (smell of burning marijuana provided an exigency); United States v. Grissett, 925 F.2d 776, 778 (4th Cir.1991) (same); State v. Rodriguez, 157 N.H. 100 , 945 A.2d 676, 678-79 (2008) (same); Rideout v. State, 122 P.3d 201, 208 (Wy.2005) (same); Mendez v. People, 986 P.2d 275, 282 (Colo.1999) (same); *242 State v. Hughes, 233 Wis.2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621, 628 (2000) (same); State v. Decker, 119 Ariz. 195 , 580 P.2d 333, 336 (1978) (same), with Howe v. State, 112 Nev. 458 , 916 P.2d 153, 160 (1996) (smell of burning marijuana…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State Of Iowa Vs. Brandon Montrese Brooks
Ed. 2d 732, 744 (1984); State v. Hughes, 607 N.W.2d 621, 629 (Wis. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Brooks
See Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 752 , 104 S.Ct. 2091, 2099 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732, 744 (1984); State v. Hughes, 233 Wis.2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621, 629 (2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Robinson
(2×)
Id. 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 750 , 135 P.3d at 10-11 ; see also Joyce v. Town of Tewksbury, Mass., 112 F.3d 19, 22 (1st Cir.1997) (en banc); Mendez v. People, 986 P.2d 275, 283 (Colo.1999); Dyer v. State, 680 So.2d 612 , 613 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996); Threatt v. State, 240 Ga.App. 592 , 524 S.E.2d 276, 280 (1999); People v. Lagle, 551, 200 Ill.App.3d 948 , 146 Ill.Dec. 551 , 558 N.E.2d 514, 519 (1990); State v. Legg, 633 N.W.2d 763, 773 (Iowa 2001); State v. Paul, 548 N.W.2d 260, 267 (Minn.1996); City of Kirksville v. Guffey, 740 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Mo.Ct.App.1987); State v. Ellinger, 223 Mont. 349 , 725 P.2d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Morgan
See, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13 , 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948) (recognizing that the odor of a burning controlled substance “might very well be found to be evidence of most persuasive character” in finding probable cause to issue a search warrant); United States v. Cephas, 254 F.3d 488, 495 (4th Cir.2001) (suggesting that the odor of burning marijuana emanating from inside an apartment alone would almost certainly have given an officer probable cause to believe contraband — marijuana — was present in an apartment); Gompf v. State, 120 P.3d 980, 986 (Wyo.2005)…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dunnuck v. State
The petitioner argues, of course, that it is a minor offense, not serious enough to support a warrantless entry into a defendant’s home to effect an arrest, see, e.g., Haley v. State, 696 N.E.2d 98, 103 (Ind.App.1998); State v. Robinson, 103 Ohio App.3d 490 , 659 N.E.2d 1292, 1296 (1995); State v. Ramirez, 49 Wash.App. 814 , 746 P.2d 344, 346 (1987), and the State argues the opposite, see, e.g., State v. Hughes, 233 Wis.2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621, 628 (2000); see generally Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 543 , 109 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 , 103 L.Ed.2d 550, 556 (1989) (recognizing tha…
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Monona v. Erick J. Erickson
See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24 , ¶2 n.1, 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 (circuit court is the “‘ultimate arbiter of the credibility of a witness’” and this court will uphold the circuit court’s “determination of credibility unless that determination goes against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence” (quoted source omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Monona v. Erick J. Erickson
See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24 , ¶2 n.1, 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 (circuit court is the “‘ultimate arbiter of the credibility of a witness’” and this court will uphold the circuit court’s “determination of credibility unless that determination goes against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence” (quoted source omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ryan D. Wilkie
See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶17 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 (recognizing an exception to the warrant requirement where the government can show both probable cause and exigent circumstances).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Parisi
See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶¶ 21-22 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 ("The quantum of evidence required to establish probable cause to search is a 'fair probability' that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place ....
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Avery
See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶ 15 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bergwin
See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24 , ¶ 2 n.1, 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 .
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Robinson
(7×)
See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24 , ¶ 28 n.7, 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 ("It is also important to note that this is not a situation in which the exigency was created by the police themselves, which would generally not justify a warrantless search of a home.") However, citing a Second Circuit opinion that has been roundly criticized, 7 the majority determines that "when law enforcement agents act in an entirely lawful manner, they do not impermissibly create exigent circumstances." Majority op., ¶ 32 (citing United States v. MacDonald, 916 F.2d 766, 771 (2d Cir. 1990)). ¶ 70.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pinkard
See State v. Fonte, 2005 WI 77, ¶ 11 , 281 Wis.2d 654 , 698 N.W.2d 594 . [13] Assessing the "exigency of the situation" under the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement is distinct from the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, which requires "both probable cause and exigent circumstances [to] overcome the individual's right to be free from government interference." State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶ 17 , 233 Wis.2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 . [1] In Kramer , this court explained how an officer meets the standard "of acting as a bona fide community caretaker, w…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Phillips
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Hughes, 233 Wis.2d 280 , ¶ 28 n. 7, 607 N.W.2d 621 . ¶ 29 My conclusion is consistent with the court's reasoning in United States v. Munoz-Guerra, 788 F.2d 295 (5th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Upright
See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24 , ¶2 n.1, 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 . ¶5 Upright also argues that the facts of his case are different from the Phillips case relied on by the circuit court.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Leutenegger
See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶ 17 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 ; State v. Milashoski, 159 Wis. 2d 99, 110-11 , 464 N.W.2d 21 (Ct. App. 1990). "[W]e weigh the urgency of the officer's need to enter against the time needed to obtain a warrant." Richter, 235 Wis. 2d 524, ¶ 28 . ¶ 13.
discussed
Cited "see"
Harley-Davidson v. Powersports Inc.
(2×)
See Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 607 N.W.2d 621, 621 (Wis. 2000).
examined
Cited "see"
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Incorporated v. Powersports, Incorporated and Powersports of Seminole County, Incorporated
(3×)
See Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 233 Wis.2d 276 , 607 N.W.2d 621, 621 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
MBI Acquisition Partners, L.P. v. Chronicle Publishing Co.
(2×)
See Home Valu, 213 F.3d at 964 -65 (citing Douglas-Hanson Co., Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co., 233 Wis.2d 276 , 607 N.W.2d 621 (2000)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Vorburger
(2×)
See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶ 8 , 233 Wis.2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 . [9] Becker testified that Officer Kosovac told her that Vorburger had informed an officer that marijuana stems and seeds were likely present in the apartment. [10] Becker's testimony differed significantly from that of Officer Kosovac's.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Krajewski
(2×)
See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶ 17 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 . ¶ 77.
examined
Cited "see"
Shandwick Holdings, Ltd. v. Carver Boat Corp.
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Douglas-Hanson Company, Inc. v. BF Goodrich Company, 2000 WI 22 , 607 N.W.2d 621 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Faith N. Reed
The fourth amendment has been liberally construed to protect the security of person and property when exceptions to the warrant requirement are sought."). 27 Payton , 445 U.S. at 586 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 477-78, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) ); Johnson v. United States , 333 U.S. 10 , 13-14, 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948) ; see also Douglas , 123 Wis. 2d at 18 , 365 N.W.2d 580 . 28 Jones v. United States , 357 U.S. 493 , 499, 78 S.Ct. 1253 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958) ; Douglas , 123 Wis. 2d at 22 , 365 N.W.2d 580 . 29 Schneckloth , 412 U.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Andy J. Parisi
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶¶ 17-18 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 (citations omitted).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Andy J. Parisi
See, e.g., State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶¶17-18 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 (citations omitted).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Nicolas Subdiaz-Osorio
See, e.g., State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶ 26 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 ; State v. Robinson, 2010 WI 80, ¶ 31 , 327 Wis. 2d 302 , 786 N.W.2d 463 (in which such signs appeared).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Guard
See, e.g., State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶ 15 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 ; State v. Robinson, 2010 WI 80, ¶ 22 , 327 Wis. 2d 302 , 786 N.W.2d 463 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Rodriguez
(2×)
We are also persuaded by the reasoning of those jurisdictions finding that the odor of burning marijuana "is itself proof that evidence of criminal conduct is being destroyed," Hess, 680 N.W.2d at 325 (citing cases); see also State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24 , 233 Wis.2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621, 628 ("The strong odor of marijuana that hit the officers as the door to the defendant's apartment was opened gave rise to a reasonable belief that the drug the evidence was likely being consumed by the occupants and consequently destroyed. . . .
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Anderson
(3×)
See also Douglas-Hanson Co., Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co., 229 Wis. 2d 132, 153 , 598 N.W.2d 262 (Ct. App. 1999), aff'd by an equally divided court, 2000 WI 22 , 233 Wis. 2d 276 , 607 N.W.2d 621 , overruled in part on other grounds by Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 2004 WI 32 , 270 Wis. 2d 146 , 677 N.W.2d 233 (Based on § 805.13(1), "the court's receipt of the jury's request for additional exhibits should have been conveyed to the parties and counsel.").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hess
(2×)
Compare State v. Hughes, 233 Wis.2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621, 628 (2000), where a war-rantless entry was upheld because, under the circumstances, the apartment occupants had every incentive to intentionally destroy evidence because they knew the police were present outside.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Nowell
(2×)
Indeed, "the possibility of destruction of evidence" constitutes one of "`the most common and compelling bases that establish[es] exigency.'" U.S. v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876 , 882 (4th Cir.1994) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1128 , 115 S.Ct. 939 , 130 L.Ed.2d 883 (1995); see also State v. Hughes, 233 Wis.2d 280, 293 , 607 N.W.2d 621, 628 ("[m]arijuana and other drugs are highly destructible"), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 856 , 121 S.Ct. 138 , 148 L.Ed.2d 90 (2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Douglas-Hanson Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BF Goodrich Company, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner
v.
BF Goodrich Company, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner
98-1737.
Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Mar 10, 2000.
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Eric J. Magnuson, John B. Lunseth II and Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel, LLP, Minneapolis, and Daniel W. Hildebrand and DeWitt Ross & Stevens, Madison, and oral argument by Daniel W. Hildebrand., For the plaintiff-respondent there was a brief by Michael R. Gray, Scott S. Payzant and Mackall, Crounse & Moore, PLC, Minneapolis, and oral argument by Scott S. Payzant.
Abrahamson, Bradley, Prosser, Bablitch, Crooks, Sykes, Wilcox.
Cited by 22 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Wisconsin Supreme Court (1)
PER CURIAM.
¶ 1. The court is equally divided on the question of whether the published decision of the court of appeals, Douglas-Hanson Co., Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co., 229 Wis. 2d 132, 598 N.W.2d 262 (Ct. App. 1999), should be affirmed or reversed.
Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY, and Justice DAVID T. PROSSER would affirm; Justice WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, Justice N. PATRICK CROOKS, and Justice DIANE S. SYKES would reverse. Justice JON P. WILCOX did not participate.¶ 2. Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.