25 Wisconsin opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
Monroe v. Funeral Directors & Embalmers Examining Boardgreen2 sentences1997See Monroe, 119 Wis. 2d at 390-91 , 349 N.W.2d at 749 . 1997See Monroe, 119 Wis. 2d at 390-91 , 349 N.W.2d at 749 . | 2 | 2 |
Selmer Co. v. Rinngreen2 sentences2025“We apply a highly deferential standard of review to damage awards, affirming if there is any credible evidence which under any reasonable view supports the finding.” Selmer Co. v. Rinn, 2010 WI App 106, ¶28 , 328 Wis. 2d 263 , 789 N.W.2d 621 . 2025“We apply a highly deferential standard of review to damage awards, affirming if there is any credible evidence which under any reasonable view supports the finding.” Selmer Co. v. Rinn, 2010 WI App 106, ¶28 , 328 Wis. 2d 263 , 789 N.W.2d 621 . | 1 | 8 |
State v. Poellingergreen2 sentences2022We assess the sufficiency of the evidence under a highly deferential standard, affirming “unless the evidence, viewed most favorably to the state and the conviction, is so insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of fact, acting reasonably, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 501 , 451 N.W.2d 752 (1990). 2022We assess the sufficiency of the evidence under a highly deferential standard, affirming “unless the evidence, viewed most favorably to the state and the conviction, is so insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of fact, acting reasonably, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 501 , 451 N.W.2d 752 (1990). | 1 | 2 |
Sliwinski v. BD. OF FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERSgreen2 sentences2019See Sliwinski v. Board of Fire & Police Comm’rs of Milwaukee, 2006 WI App 27, ¶12 , 289 Wis. 2d 422 , 711 N.W.2d 271 . 2019See Sliwinski v. Board of Fire & Police Comm’rs of Milwaukee, 2006 WI App 27, ¶12 , 289 Wis. 2d 422 , 711 N.W.2d 271 . | 1 | 1 |
Engel v. Dunn Countygreen1 sentence2011See Selmer Co. v. Rinn, 2010 WI App 106, ¶ 28 , 328 Wis. 2d 263 , 789 N.W.2d 621 ("We apply a highly deferential standard of review to damage awards, affirming if there is any credible evidence which under any reasonable view supports the finding."); see also Engel, 273 Wis. at 223 (When the only evidence presented to the trial court is the cost of repairs and the trial court awards damages based on that evidence, " '[w]e cannot say that the conclusion of the court... is against the clear preponderance of the evidence.'") (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Tomczak v. Baileygreen1 sentence2004Id. at 261-62, 264 . ¶ 14. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jacobson v. American Tool Cos., Inc.
green
2 sentences2023When reviewing “the sufficiency of the evidence,” this court uses “a highly deferential standard of review.” Jacobson v. American Tool Cos., 222 Wis. 2d 384, 389 , 588 N.W.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1998). 2023When reviewing “the sufficiency of the evidence,” this court uses “a highly deferential standard of review.” Jacobson v. American Tool Cos., 222 Wis. 2d 384, 389 , 588 N.W.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1998). | 8 | 2004–2023 |
Royster-Clark, Inc. v. Olsen's Mill, Inc.
green
2 sentences2026We apply a highly deferential standard of review to a circuit court’s findings of fact and will defer to the court’s findings unless they are “against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.” Royster-Clark, Inc., v. Olsen’s Mill, Inc., 2006 WI 46, ¶12 , 290 Wis. 2d 264 , 714 N.W.2d 530 . ¶70 Instead of challenging the circuit court’s factual findings regarding Dr. Reich’s testimony, Frost relies on Plude to support his argument that he met the four threshold factors necessary for his newly discovered evidence claim. 2026We apply a highly deferential standard of review to a circuit court’s findings of fact and will defer to the court’s findings unless they are “against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.” Royster-Clark, Inc., v. Olsen’s Mill, Inc., 2006 WI 46, ¶12 , 290 Wis. 2d 264 , 714 N.W.2d 530 . ¶70 Instead of challenging the circuit court’s factual findings regarding Dr. Reich’s testimony, Frost relies on Plude to support his argument that he met the four threshold factors necessary for his newly discovered evidence claim. | 3 | 2021–2026 |
Eden Stone Co. v. Oakfield Stone Co.
green
2 sentences2025“It is generally held that the uncertainty which prevents recovery is uncertainty as to the fact of the damage and not to its amount,” and “[t]his rule [applies] where, from the nature of the case, the extent of injury and the amount of damage are not capable of exact and accurate proof.” Eden Stone Co. v. Oakfield Stone Co., 166 Wis. 2d 105, 125 , 479 N.W.2d 557 (Ct. App. 1991). ¶38 We conclude that the $4,000 award for the Sheas’ DTPA claim is supported by the record. 2025“It is generally held that the uncertainty which prevents recovery is uncertainty as to the fact of the damage and not to its amount,” and “[t]his rule [applies] where, from the nature of the case, the extent of injury and the amount of damage are not capable of exact and accurate proof.” Eden Stone Co. v. Oakfield Stone Co., 166 Wis. 2d 105, 125 , 479 N.W.2d 557 (Ct. App. 1991). ¶38 We conclude that the $4,000 award for the Sheas’ DTPA claim is supported by the record. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Timothy E. Dobbs
green
1 sentence2023It is equally settled that an appeals court reviews the determination of the circuit court under an erroneous exercise of discretion standard and, to that end, “will not reverse a circuit court’s decision if the decision ‘had a reasonable basis,’ and ‘was made in 7 No. 2021AP2228-CR accordance with accepted legal standards and in accordance with the facts of the record.” Id. ¶19 Consistent with this highly deferential standard, this court “will search the record for reasons supporting the [circuit] court’s decision, and [it] will sustain a ruling even where [it disagrees,] so long as appropria | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Markell Hogan
green
2 sentences2023It is equally settled that an appeals court reviews the determination of the circuit court under an erroneous exercise of discretion standard and, to that end, “will not reverse a circuit court’s decision if the decision ‘had a reasonable basis,’ and ‘was made in 7 No. 2021AP2228-CR accordance with accepted legal standards and in accordance with the facts of the record.” Id. ¶19 Consistent with this highly deferential standard, this court “will search the record for reasons supporting the [circuit] court’s decision, and [it] will sustain a ruling even where [it disagrees,] so long as appropria 2023It is equally settled that an appeals court reviews the determination of the circuit court under an erroneous exercise of discretion standard and, to that end, “will not reverse a circuit court’s decision if the decision ‘had a reasonable basis,’ and ‘was made in 7 No. 2021AP2228-CR accordance with accepted legal standards and in accordance with the facts of the record.” Id. ¶19 Consistent with this highly deferential standard, this court “will search the record for reasons supporting the [circuit] court’s decision, and [it] will sustain a ruling even where [it disagrees,] so long as appropria | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Quinsanna D.
green
2 sentences2023“When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we apply a highly deferential standard of review.” Jacobson v. American Tool Cos., 222 Wis. 2d 384, 389 , 588 N.W.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1998). ¶14 Our “review of a jury’s verdict is narrow,” and we “will sustain a jury verdict if there is any credible evidence to support it.” State v. Quinsanna D., 2002 WI App 318, ¶30 , 259 Wis. 2d 429 , 655 N.W.2d 752 . 2023“When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we apply a highly deferential standard of review.” Jacobson v. American Tool Cos., 222 Wis. 2d 384, 389 , 588 N.W.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1998). ¶14 Our “review of a jury’s verdict is narrow,” and we “will sustain a jury verdict if there is any credible evidence to support it.” State v. Quinsanna D., 2002 WI App 318, ¶30 , 259 Wis. 2d 429 , 655 N.W.2d 752 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Cianciola LLP v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
neutral
2 sentences2020Sewerage Dist., 2011 WI App 35, ¶21 , 331 Wis. 2d 740 , 796 N.W.2d 806 (applying clearly erroneous standard). 2020Sewerage Dist., 2011 WI App 35, ¶21 , 331 Wis. 2d 740 , 796 N.W.2d 806 (applying clearly erroneous standard). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Laughland v. Beckett
green
2 sentences2020“We apply a highly deferential standard of review to damage awards, affirming if there is any credible 3 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version. 10 No. 2018AP960 evidence which under any reasonable view supports the finding.” Laughland v. Beckett, 2015 WI App 70, ¶34 , 365 Wis. 2d 148 , 870 N.W.2d 466 (citing The Selmer Co. v. Rinn, 2010 WI App 106, ¶28 , 328 Wis. 2d 263 , 789 N.W.2d 621 ). 2020“We apply a highly deferential standard of review to damage awards, affirming if there is any credible 3 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version. 10 No. 2018AP960 evidence which under any reasonable view supports the finding.” Laughland v. Beckett, 2015 WI App 70, ¶34 , 365 Wis. 2d 148 , 870 N.W.2d 466 (citing The Selmer Co. v. Rinn, 2010 WI App 106, ¶28 , 328 Wis. 2d 263 , 789 N.W.2d 621 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.