Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1883–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pennsylvania v. Ritchiegreen1 sentence2023See Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57 ; see also Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999) (stating that evidence in the government's "possession" for Brady purposes includes "'favorable evidence known to others acting on the government's behalf in th[e] case'" (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Kyles v. Whitleygreen1 sentence2023See Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57 ; see also Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999) (stating that evidence in the government's "possession" for Brady purposes includes "'favorable evidence known to others acting on the government's behalf in th[e] case'" (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Strickler v. Greenegreen1 sentence2023See Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57 ; see also Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999) (stating that evidence in the government's "possession" for Brady purposes includes "'favorable evidence known to others acting on the government's behalf in th[e] case'" (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Gutierrez v. People's Management of Texas I, Ltd.green1 sentence2021See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hahn
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 360 . 7 Without explicitly accepting or rejecting an exclusive possession requirement, we merely "conclude[d] that the state had possession of the vehicle." Id. at 358 . 2010Id. at 360 . 7 Without explicitly accepting or rejecting an exclusive possession requirement, we merely "conclude[d] that the state had possession of the vehicle." Id. at 358 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Zac A. Crittenden, Jr., D/B/A Crittenden Tractor Company
green
1 sentence1992Crittenden, 563 F.2d at 691 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Hungerford v. Redford
neutral
1 sentence1883It is that fact which gives to it its character and legal effect.” In Hungerford v. Redford, 29 Wis., 345 , Justice Lvorr says: “Merely colorable title in the plaintiff is not alone sufficient to entitle him to a judgment in an action like this, ;where, as in this case, the land is unoccupied. | 1 | 1883–1883 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.