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.
25 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2025 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 ex rel. Kiekhaefer v. Andersongreen2 sentences2019First, "[i]n order to entitle a party to a writ of prohibition, the results of the error attacked must not only be prejudicial to him but must [also] involve extraordinary hardship." Kiekhaefer , 4 Wis. 2d at 490 , 90 N.W.2d 790 (emphasis omitted) (citing Pierce-Arrow ). 2019First, "[i]n order to entitle a party to a writ of prohibition, the results of the error attacked must not only be prejudicial to him but must [also] involve extraordinary hardship." Kiekhaefer , 4 Wis. 2d at 490 , 90 N.W.2d 790 (emphasis omitted) (citing Pierce-Arrow ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Alexandergreen2 sentences2008See State v. Alexander, 214 Wis.2d 628, 644-51 , 571 N.W.2d 662 (1997) (criticizing the admission of prior convictions when the defendant stipulates to those convictions and the only purpose of admission is to prove a status element); see also Wis. Stat. § 904.04 (2) (precluding the admission of other crimes generally unless an exception applies). (2) The admission of the fact that a preliminary breath test was conducted and the results of that test. 2008See State v. Alexander, 214 Wis.2d 628, 644-51 , 571 N.W.2d 662 (1997) (criticizing the admission of prior convictions when the defendant stipulates to those convictions and the only purpose of admission is to prove a status element); see also Wis. Stat. § 904.04 (2) (precluding the admission of other crimes generally unless an exception applies). (2) The admission of the fact that a preliminary breath test was conducted and the results of that test. | 1 | 1 |
Gross v. Hoffmangreen2 sentences1999See Gross v. Hoffman, 227 Wis. 296, 300 , 277 N.W. 663, 665 (1938) (only dispositive issue need be addressed). [2] Indeed, although, as the dissent points out, the police officer in Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989), described accurately the state-law procedure in that case, see id., 492 U.S. at 204 , Duckworth was based on a more fundamental principle: namely, that all a person in custody need be told is that he or she does not have to talk to the police until that person has a lawyer. 1999See Gross v. Hoffman, 227 Wis. 296, 300 , 277 N.W. 663, 665 (1938) (only dispositive issue need be addressed). [2] Indeed, although, as the dissent points out, the police officer in Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989), described accurately the state-law procedure in that case, see id., 492 U.S. at 204 , Duckworth was based on a more fundamental principle: namely, that all a person in custody need be told is that he or she does not have to talk to the police until that person has a lawyer. | 1 | 1 |
Duckworth v. Eagangreen2 sentences1999See Gross v. Hoffman, 227 Wis. 296, 300 , 277 N.W. 663, 665 (1938) (only dispositive issue need be addressed). [2] Indeed, although, as the dissent points out, the police officer in Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989), described accurately the state-law procedure in that case, see id., 492 U.S. at 204 , Duckworth was based on a more fundamental principle: namely, that all a person in custody need be told is that he or she does not have to talk to the police until that person has a lawyer. 1999See Gross v. Hoffman, 227 Wis. 296, 300 , 277 N.W. 663, 665 (1938) (only dispositive issue need be addressed). [2] Indeed, although, as the dissent points out, the police officer in Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989), described accurately the state-law procedure in that case, see id., 492 U.S. at 204 , Duckworth was based on a more fundamental principle: namely, that all a person in custody need be told is that he or she does not have to talk to the police until that person has a lawyer. | 1 | 1 |
Van Straten v. Milwaukee Journal Newspaper-Publishergreen2 sentences1991The majority concludes that this holding is required by Van Straten v. Milwaukee Journal Newspaper-Publisher, 151 Wis. 2d 905, 922 , 447 N.W.2d 105, 112 (Ct. App. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 2626 (1990). 1991The majority concludes that this holding is required by Van Straten v. Milwaukee Journal Newspaper-Publisher, 151 Wis. 2d 905, 922 , 447 N.W.2d 105, 112 (Ct. App. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 2626 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. West Side Trust & Savings Bankgreen1 sentence1983People v. Taylor, 36 N.E.2d 573, 576 (Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Rock Island, Arkansas & Louisiana Railroad v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1981As the hearing examiner stated in his Memorandum Accompanying Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Proposed Order, "After some thirty days of hearing, this case has simply narrowed itself to the issue of recognizing that Dr. Strigenz is deficient in his crown and bridge work; that he understands the basic concepts of occlusion, crown preparation, and the more fundamental restorative dentistry that has to do with filling cavities." [8] Rock Island & RR v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143 (1920). [9] St. 1981As the hearing examiner stated in his Memorandum Accompanying Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Proposed Order, “After some thirty days of hearing, this case has simply narrowed itself to the issue of recognizing that Dr. Strigenz is deficient in his crown and bridge work; that he understands the basic concepts of occlusion, crown preparation, and the more fundamental restorative dentistry that has to do with filling cavities.” Rock Island & RR v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143 (1920). | 1 | 1 |
Megdal v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examinersgreen2 sentences1981Compare Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 288 Ore. 293 , 605 P.2d 273 (1980) (en banc) with Pennsylvania State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Cohen, 448 Pa. 189 , 292 A.2d 277 (1972). [7] The results of the hearing were hardly shocking. 1981Compare Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 288 Ore. 293 , 605 P.2d 273 (1980) (en banc) with Pennsylvania State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Cohen, 448 Pa. 189 , 292 A.2d 277 (1972). [7] The results of the hearing were hardly shocking. | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy v. Cohengreen2 sentences1981Compare Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 288 Ore. 293 , 605 P.2d 273 (1980) (en banc) with Pennsylvania State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Cohen, 448 Pa. 189 , 292 A.2d 277 (1972). [7] The results of the hearing were hardly shocking. 1981Compare Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 288 Ore. 293 , 605 P.2d 273 (1980) (en banc) with Pennsylvania State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Cohen, 448 Pa. 189 , 292 A.2d 277 (1972). [7] The results of the hearing were hardly shocking. | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. State of Oklahomagreen1 sentence1980Edwards v. Oklahoma, supra, at 671. | 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. Perlin
green
2 sentences1974In State v. Perlin (1955), 268 Wis. 529, 537 , 68 N. W. 2d 32 , the trial court had denied defendant’s request for a lie detector test and this court said, “. . . results of such a test are not evidence admissible upon trial. ...” 1 The trial court refused to permit reference to this self-serving offer to take the test because the results of the test would have been inadmissible, citing State v. Baker (1962), 16 Wis. 2d 364 , 114 N. W. 2d 426 . 1974In State v. Perlin (1955), 268 Wis. 529, 537 , 68 N. W. 2d 32 , the trial court had denied defendant’s request for a lie detector test and this court said, “. . . results of such a test are not evidence admissible upon trial. ...” 1 The trial court refused to permit reference to this self-serving offer to take the test because the results of the test would have been inadmissible, citing State v. Baker (1962), 16 Wis. 2d 364 , 114 N. W. 2d 426 . | 3 | 1962–1974 |
Lefevre v. State
green
2 sentences1974The results of such a test [polygraph] are inadmissible, as the state concedes. . . .” See also: Meyer v. State (1964), 25 Wis. 2d 418, 425 , 130 N. W. 2d 848 ; State v. Perlin (1955), 268 Wis. 529, 537 , 68 N. W. 2d 32 ; LeFevre v. State (1943), 242 Wis. 416, 425 , 8 N. W. 2d 288 ; State v. Bohner, supra, at page 658. 1974The results of such a test [polygraph] are inadmissible, as the state concedes. . . .” See also: Meyer v. State (1964), 25 Wis. 2d 418, 425 , 130 N. W. 2d 848 ; State v. Perlin (1955), 268 Wis. 529, 537 , 68 N. W. 2d 32 ; LeFevre v. State (1943), 242 Wis. 416, 425 , 8 N. W. 2d 288 ; State v. Bohner, supra, at page 658. | 3 | 1962–1974 |
State v. Stanislawski
green
2 sentences1980Among other things, the form stated that the results of the test may be used at trial by the State or defendant “subject to limitations set forth in State v. Stanislawski, 62 Wis.2d 730 , 216 N.W.2d 8 or the Rules of Evidence . . . .” At trial, the polygrapher testified that before he administered the test on August 1, 1978, he informed the defendant that he did not have to take it if he did not so desire. 1980Among other things, the form stated that the results of the test may be used at trial by the State or defendant “subject to limitations set forth in State v. Stanislawski, 62 Wis.2d 730 , 216 N.W.2d 8 or the Rules of Evidence . . . .” At trial, the polygrapher testified that before he administered the test on August 1, 1978, he informed the defendant that he did not have to take it if he did not so desire. | 2 | 1977–1980 |
State v. Bohner
green
2 sentences1974State v. Bohner (1933), 210 Wis. 651 , 246 N. W. 314 ; LeFevre v. State (1943), 242 Wis. 416 , 8 N. W. (2d) 288 ; State v. Perlin (1955), 268 Wis. 529 , 68 N. W. (2d) 32 . 1974State v. Bohner (1933), 210 Wis. 651 , 246 N. W. 314 ; LeFevre v. State (1943), 242 Wis. 416 , 8 N. W. (2d) 288 ; State v. Perlin (1955), 268 Wis. 529 , 68 N. W. (2d) 32 . | 2 | 1962–1974 |
Gebaj v. State
neutral
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State Ex Rel. Boehm v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
green
1 sentence2020To state the obvious, this would occur on a significant scale only in the absence of meaningful enforcement of easement terms by program administrators. ¶91 Further, the LLC’s argument appears to run contrary to the general proposition, explained by our supreme court, that in assessing whether to prepare an impact statement an agency may reasonably assume “that any environmental consequences will be controlled through compliance with the applicable administrative code provisions.” See Boehm, 174 Wis. 2d at 676 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Payano-Roman
green
2 sentences2019Having obtained the breath sample, Ms. Randall's logic would require the State to obtain a warrant (or WI 47, ¶31, 290 Wis. 2d 380 , 714 N.W.2d 548 ("A lawful arrest gives rise to heightened concerns that may justify a warrantless search, including the need to discover and preserve evidence."). 19 No. 2017AP1518-CR satisfy one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement) before reading the results of the test. 2019Having obtained the breath sample, Ms. Randall's logic would require the State to obtain a warrant (or WI 47, ¶31, 290 Wis. 2d 380 , 714 N.W.2d 548 ("A lawful arrest gives rise to heightened concerns that may justify a warrantless search, including the need to discover and preserve evidence."). 19 No. 2017AP1518-CR satisfy one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement) before reading the results of the test. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Schlise
green
2 sentences2008Id. at 40 . 2008Id. at 40 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Cathey
green
2 sentences2006Only convictions, not mere arrests, are admissible for impeachment purposes, State v. Cathey, 32 Wis. 2d 79, 89 , 145 N.W.2d 100 (1966), so withholding an arrest record could not be a Brady violation under the facts in this case. 2006Only convictions, not mere arrests, are admissible for impeachment purposes, State v. Cathey, 32 Wis. 2d 79, 89 , 145 N.W.2d 100 (1966), so withholding an arrest record could not be a Brady violation under the facts in this case. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Estelle v. Smith
green
1 sentence2004Estelle, 451 U.S. at 466-67 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Crowell
green
2 sentences2004Id. 2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. McCrossen
green
1 sentence2004(The court in McCros-sen held that the failure to provide an additional test in response to the accused's request did not violate due process and thereby require dismissal of the complaint; it also held that the circuit court properly excluded reference to the request for an additional test because it excluded evidence of the results of the test performed. 129 Wis. 2d at 280 .) As in its reference to Renard, the Piddington court was describing the facts in McCrossen , not deciding that a request for an additional test is not valid unless made after the first test has been administered. 5 The p | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Eton Chaney v. Suburban Bus Division Of The Regional Transportation Authority
green
1 sentence1999Id. *409 ¶ 85. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Jackson v. Dixon-Bookman
green
2 sentences1991The majority concludes that this holding is required. by Van Straten v. Milwaukee Journal Newspaper-Publisher, 151 Wis.2d 905, 922 , 447 N.W.2d 105, 112 (Ct. App. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 2626 (1990). 1991The majority concludes that this holding is required by Van Straten v. Milwaukee Journal Newspaper-Publisher, 151 Wis. 2d 905, 922 , 447 N.W.2d 105, 112 (Ct. App. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 2626 (1990). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Waller v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1990Id. at 50 . [6] In this case, the constitutional violation occurred at a preliminary hearing. 1990Id. at 50 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Schmerber v. California
green
1 sentence1975Since the blood test evidence, although an incriminating product of compulsion, was neither petitioner’s testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds.” Id. page 765. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Baker
green
2 sentences1974In State v. Perlin (1955), 268 Wis. 529, 537 , 68 N. W. 2d 32 , the trial court had denied defendant’s request for a lie detector test and this court said, “. . . results of such a test are not evidence admissible upon trial. ...” 1 The trial court refused to permit reference to this self-serving offer to take the test because the results of the test would have been inadmissible, citing State v. Baker (1962), 16 Wis. 2d 364 , 114 N. W. 2d 426 . 1974In State v. Perlin (1955), 268 Wis. 529, 537 , 68 N. W. 2d 32 , the trial court had denied defendant’s request for a lie detector test and this court said, “. . . results of such a test are not evidence admissible upon trial. ...” 1 The trial court refused to permit reference to this self-serving offer to take the test because the results of the test would have been inadmissible, citing State v. Baker (1962), 16 Wis. 2d 364 , 114 N. W. 2d 426 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Meyer v. State
green
2 sentences1974The results of such a test [polygraph] are inadmissible, as the state concedes. . . .” See also: Meyer v. State (1964), 25 Wis. 2d 418, 425 , 130 N. W. 2d 848 ; State v. Perlin (1955), 268 Wis. 529, 537 , 68 N. W. 2d 32 ; LeFevre v. State (1943), 242 Wis. 416, 425 , 8 N. W. 2d 288 ; State v. Bohner, supra, at page 658. 1974The results of such a test [polygraph] are inadmissible, as the state concedes. . . .” See also: Meyer v. State (1964), 25 Wis. 2d 418, 425 , 130 N. W. 2d 848 ; State v. Perlin (1955), 268 Wis. 529, 537 , 68 N. W. 2d 32 ; LeFevre v. State (1943), 242 Wis. 416, 425 , 8 N. W. 2d 288 ; State v. Bohner, supra, at page 658. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Prochnow v. Prochnow
neutral
2 sentences1958That statute was considered in Prochnow v. Prochnow, 274 Wis. 491 , 80 N. W. (2d) 278 , and it was there held that the statute did no more than to admit the results of the test, which were to be given such weight and credibility in competition with other evidence as the trier of the fact thought they deserved. 1958That statute was considered in Prochnow v. Prochnow, 274 Wis. 491 , 80 N. W. (2d) 278 , and it was there held that the statute did no more than to admit the results of the test, which were to be given such weight and credibility in competition with other evidence as the trier of the fact thought they deserved. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
In re Pierce-Arrow Motor Car Co.
green
2 sentences1958Petition of Pierce-Arrow Motor Car Co. (1910), 143 Wis. 282, 285 , 127 N. W. 998 ; State ex rel. 1958Petition of Pierce-Arrow Motor Car Co. (1910), 143 Wis. 282, 285 , 127 N. W. 998 ; State ex rel. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.