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 1980–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rabegreen2 sentences1991Id. at 63 , 291 N.W.2d at 816 (emphasis added; citation omitted). 1991Id. at 63 , 291 N.W.2d at 816 (emphasis added; citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Leogreen1 sentence1980The second component of the test for multiplicity focuses on the legislative intent as to the allowable unit of prosecution under the statute in question. [11] We conclude that the four counts charged in this case related to separate and distinct offenses and, for the reasons discussed below, the counts are not multiplicitous under either component of the test. [12] The test uniformly used in Wisconsin to determine multiplicity is the "additional fact" test, which examines "whether each count requires proof of an additional fact which the other count or counts do not." United States *64 v. Leo | 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. Pitsch
green
2 sentences1993Id. at 640-41 , 369 N.W.2d at 718 . 1993Id. at 640-41 , 369 N.W.2d at 718 . | 2 | 1993–1993 |
Steele v. State
green
2 sentences2025However, citing Steele v. State, 97 Wis. 2d 72 , 294 N.W.2d 2 (1980), the State argues that “Wisconsin law barred McCandless from using the psychological evidence to argue that she lacked the requisite mens rea.” In Steele, our supreme court stated that “repeated reasoned statements of this court have amply demonstrated a sufficient state justification for the exclusion of expert opinion testimony on mental capacity to form an intent in the guilt phase of a bifurcated [NGI] trial.” Id. at 85 . 2025However, citing Steele v. State, 97 Wis. 2d 72 , 294 N.W.2d 2 (1980), the State argues that “Wisconsin law barred McCandless from using the psychological evidence to argue that she lacked the requisite mens rea.” In Steele, our supreme court stated that “repeated reasoned statements of this court have amply demonstrated a sufficient state justification for the exclusion of expert opinion testimony on mental capacity to form an intent in the guilt phase of a bifurcated [NGI] trial.” Id. at 85 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.