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.
23 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Trinity Lutheran Church v. Dorschner Excavating, Inc.green2 sentences2025Compare Racine Cnty. v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc., 2010 WI 25, ¶24 , 323 Wis. 2d 682 , 781 N.W.2d 88 (“whether expert testimony is necessary to prove a given claim is a question of law that we review de novo” (citing Trinity Lutheran Church v. Dorschner Excavating, Inc., 2006 WI App 22, ¶26 , 289 Wis. 2d 252 , 710 N.W.2d 680 )), with State v. Burch, 2021 WI 68 , ¶28, 398 Wis. 2d 1 , 961 N.W.2d 314 (“What falls within the (continued) 9 No. 2024AP1492 ¶22 But I need not decide whether testimony that Khoury appeared prepared to offer could meet the Daubert standard embodied in WIS. 2025Compare Racine Cnty. v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc., 2010 WI 25, ¶24 , 323 Wis. 2d 682 , 781 N.W.2d 88 (“whether expert testimony is necessary to prove a given claim is a question of law that we review de novo” (citing Trinity Lutheran Church v. Dorschner Excavating, Inc., 2006 WI App 22, ¶26 , 289 Wis. 2d 252 , 710 N.W.2d 680 )), with State v. Burch, 2021 WI 68 , ¶28, 398 Wis. 2d 1 , 961 N.W.2d 314 (“What falls within the (continued) 9 No. 2024AP1492 ¶22 But I need not decide whether testimony that Khoury appeared prepared to offer could meet the Daubert standard embodied in WIS. | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Zanghigreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u | 2 | 2 |
State v. Azuregreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u | 2 | 2 |
Weeks v. Angelonegreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u | 2 | 2 |
State v. Willisgreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u | 2 | 2 |
Racine County v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc.green2 sentences2025Compare Racine Cnty. v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc., 2010 WI 25, ¶24 , 323 Wis. 2d 682 , 781 N.W.2d 88 (“whether expert testimony is necessary to prove a given claim is a question of law that we review de novo” (citing Trinity Lutheran Church v. Dorschner Excavating, Inc., 2006 WI App 22, ¶26 , 289 Wis. 2d 252 , 710 N.W.2d 680 )), with State v. Burch, 2021 WI 68 , ¶28, 398 Wis. 2d 1 , 961 N.W.2d 314 (“What falls within the (continued) 9 No. 2024AP1492 ¶22 But I need not decide whether testimony that Khoury appeared prepared to offer could meet the Daubert standard embodied in WIS. 2025Compare Racine Cnty. v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc., 2010 WI 25, ¶24 , 323 Wis. 2d 682 , 781 N.W.2d 88 (“whether expert testimony is necessary to prove a given claim is a question of law that we review de novo” (citing Trinity Lutheran Church v. Dorschner Excavating, Inc., 2006 WI App 22, ¶26 , 289 Wis. 2d 252 , 710 N.W.2d 680 )), with State v. Burch, 2021 WI 68 , ¶28, 398 Wis. 2d 1 , 961 N.W.2d 314 (“What falls within the (continued) 9 No. 2024AP1492 ¶22 But I need not decide whether testimony that Khoury appeared prepared to offer could meet the Daubert standard embodied in WIS. | 1 | 3 |
State v. George Steven Burchgreen1 sentence2025Compare Racine Cnty. v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc., 2010 WI 25, ¶24 , 323 Wis. 2d 682 , 781 N.W.2d 88 (“whether expert testimony is necessary to prove a given claim is a question of law that we review de novo” (citing Trinity Lutheran Church v. Dorschner Excavating, Inc., 2006 WI App 22, ¶26 , 289 Wis. 2d 252 , 710 N.W.2d 680 )), with State v. Burch, 2021 WI 68 , ¶28, 398 Wis. 2d 1 , 961 N.W.2d 314 (“What falls within the (continued) 9 No. 2024AP1492 ¶22 But I need not decide whether testimony that Khoury appeared prepared to offer could meet the Daubert standard embodied in WIS. | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2023See Turner v. Taylor, 2003 WI App 256 , ¶1 n.1, 268 Wis. 2d 628 , 673 N.W.2d 716 (court of appeals need not address all issues raised by the parties if one is dispositive). ¶16 When the facts are undisputed, whether the applicable statute of limitations has run on a given claim is a question of law. 2023See Turner v. Taylor, 2003 WI App 256 , ¶1 n.1, 268 Wis. 2d 628 , 673 N.W.2d 716 (court of appeals need not address all issues raised by the parties if one is dispositive). ¶16 When the facts are undisputed, whether the applicable statute of limitations has run on a given claim is a question of law. | 1 | 1 |
Kruckenberg v. Harveygreen2 sentences2019See Kruckenberg v. Harvey, 2005 WI 43, ¶26 , 279 Wis. 2d 520 , 694 N.W.2d 879 . 24 No. 2018AP940 A given claim may find support in theories or grounds arising from both state and federal law. 2019See Kruckenberg v. Harvey, 2005 WI 43, ¶26 , 279 Wis. 2d 520 , 694 N.W.2d 879 . 24 No. 2018AP940 A given claim may find support in theories or grounds arising from both state and federal law. | 1 | 1 |
Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisors LLCgreen2 sentences2018See Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers LLC , 2014 WI 86 , ¶ 17, 356 Wis.2d 665 , 849 N.W.2d 693 . 2018See Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers LLC , 2014 WI 86 , ¶ 17, 356 Wis.2d 665 , 849 N.W.2d 693 . | 1 | 1 |
Chiarella v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2013A court "cannot affirm a criminal conviction on the basis of a theory not presented to the jury." Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222, 236 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2011See State v. Woods, 117 Wis. 2d 701, 710 , 345 N.W.2d 457 (1984) (applying standards for probable cause to arrest an adult in a case involving a juvenile).) State v. Lange, 2009 WI 49 , 317 Wis. 2d 383 , 766 N.W.2d 551 , addressed the question of whether there was probable cause to arrest, rather than the question we address here, which is whether there was probable cause to request a PBT breath sample; we cite it here because it illustrates that regardless of the quantum of evidence needed to satisfy a given standard, a prior conviction may be taken into consideration. 2011See State v. Woods, 117 Wis. 2d 701, 710 , 345 N.W.2d 457 (1984) (applying standards for probable cause to arrest an adult in a case involving a juvenile).) State v. Lange, 2009 WI 49 , 317 Wis. 2d 383 , 766 N.W.2d 551 , addressed the question of whether there was probable cause to arrest, rather than the question we address here, which is whether there was probable cause to request a PBT breath sample; we cite it here because it illustrates that regardless of the quantum of evidence needed to satisfy a given standard, a prior conviction may be taken into consideration. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Langegreen2 sentences2011See State v. Woods, 117 Wis. 2d 701, 710 , 345 N.W.2d 457 (1984) (applying standards for probable cause to arrest an adult in a case involving a juvenile).) State v. Lange, 2009 WI 49 , 317 Wis. 2d 383 , 766 N.W.2d 551 , addressed the question of whether there was probable cause to arrest, rather than the question we address here, which is whether there was probable cause to request a PBT breath sample; we cite it here because it illustrates that regardless of the quantum of evidence needed to satisfy a given standard, a prior conviction may be taken into consideration. 2011See State v. Woods, 117 Wis. 2d 701, 710 , 345 N.W.2d 457 (1984) (applying standards for probable cause to arrest an adult in a case involving a juvenile).) State v. Lange, 2009 WI 49 , 317 Wis. 2d 383 , 766 N.W.2d 551 , addressed the question of whether there was probable cause to arrest, rather than the question we address here, which is whether there was probable cause to request a PBT breath sample; we cite it here because it illustrates that regardless of the quantum of evidence needed to satisfy a given standard, a prior conviction may be taken into consideration. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnstongreen2 sentences2010See State v. Johnston, 184 Wis. 2d 794, 822-23 , 518 N.W.2d 759 (1994) (holding that a party's failure to object to the jury instructions at trial waives the issue for later review). 2010See State v. Johnston, 184 Wis. 2d 794, 822-23 , 518 N.W.2d 759 (1994) (holding that a party's failure to object to the jury instructions at trial waives the issue for later review). | 1 | 1 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF GRACE v. Gracegreen2 sentences2006See Grace v. Grace, 195 Wis. 2d 153, 159 , 536 N.W.2d 109 (Ct. App. 1995). 2006See Grace v. Grace, 195 Wis. 2d 153, 159 , 536 N.W.2d 109 (Ct. App. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Kramer v. Hortongreen2 sentences1987Kramer v. Horton, 128 Wis. 2d 404, 414 , 383 N.W.2d 54, 58 (1986). 1987Kramer v. Horton, 128 Wis. 2d 404, 414 , 383 N.W.2d 54, 58 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Abraham Chaifetz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1987Of course a defendant can sometimes waive an instruction to which he is entitled, or fail to claim one; but a requested instruction must truly reflect the applicable law, no matter who requests it." Chaifetz v. United States, 288 F.2d 133, 136 (1960). 1987Of course a defendant can sometimes waive an instruction to which he is entitled, or fail to claim one; but a requested instruction must truly reflect the applicable law, no matter who requests it.” Chaifetz v. United States, 288 F.2d 133, 136 (1960). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Harmann Ex Rel. Bertz v. Hadley
green
2 sentences1993In addition, "the equities peculiar to a given rule or case determine the rule adopted by the court." Id. at 379 . 1986Harmann v. Hadley, 128 Wis. 2d 371, 377-79 , 382 N.W. 2d 673 (1986). | 2 | 1986–1993 |
Munger v. Seehafer
green
2 sentences2023Munger v. Seehafer, 2016 WI App 89, ¶18 , 372 Wis. 2d 749 , 890 N.W.2d 22 . 2023Munger v. Seehafer, 2016 WI App 89, ¶18 , 372 Wis. 2d 749 , 890 N.W.2d 22 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Kraft v. Steinhafel
green
2 sentences2022The court did not err. ¶16 “[W]hether expert testimony is necessary to prove a given claim is a question of law that we review de novo.” Kraft v. Steinhafel, 2015 WI App 62, ¶9 , 364 Wis. 2d 672 , 869 N.W.2d 506 (citation omitted). ¶17 At the small claims court trial, Schmitz indicated that his counterclaim was because he suffered $10,000 in damages—payment Schmitz made to “DeWitt”—due to Kaminsky committing malpractice by doing “a lousy job.” In attempting to make his case, Schmitz essentially told the court that it should look through “the file” and determine on its own from such a review th 2022The court did not err. ¶16 “[W]hether expert testimony is necessary to prove a given claim is a question of law that we review de novo.” Kraft v. Steinhafel, 2015 WI App 62, ¶9 , 364 Wis. 2d 672 , 869 N.W.2d 506 (citation omitted). ¶17 At the small claims court trial, Schmitz indicated that his counterclaim was because he suffered $10,000 in damages—payment Schmitz made to “DeWitt”—due to Kaminsky committing malpractice by doing “a lousy job.” In attempting to make his case, Schmitz essentially told the court that it should look through “the file” and determine on its own from such a review th | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Donyil L. Anderson, Sr.
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Rondesvedt v. Running
green
2 sentences1987Two surveyors who performed surveys in association with the instant case attempted reconstructing a meander line, apparently relying on field notes from the original survey. 8 "Reliction is the gradual uncovering of land caused by the recession of a body of water.'" Manual of Instructions, sec. 7-63. 9 In discussing various methods of apportioning an accretion or a reliction, this court has stated: "Although different rules may apply to situations falling into substantially different types ... in any situation a given rule is not to be strictly applied so as to produce an inequitable result be 1987Two surveyors who performed surveys in association with the instant case attempted reconstructing a meander line, apparently relying on field notes from the original survey. 8 "Reliction is the gradual uncovering of land caused by the recession of a body of water.'" Manual of Instructions, sec. 7-63. 9 In discussing various methods of apportioning an accretion or a reliction, this court has stated: "Although different rules may apply to situations falling into substantially different types ... in any situation a given rule is not to be strictly applied so as to produce an inequitable result be | 1 | 1987–1987 |
First National Leasing Corp. v. City of Madison
green
2 sentences1986First National Leasing Corp. v. Madison, 81 Wis. 2d 205, 208 , 260 N.W.2d 251 (1977). 1986First National Leasing Corp. v. Madison, 81 Wis. 2d 205, 208 , 260 N.W.2d 251 (1977). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc.
green
1 sentence1986It has also been denied where the purpose of the new ruling cannot be served by retroac-tivity, and where retroactivity would tend to thrust an excessive burden on the administration of justice." Fitzgerald, v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc., supra 38 Wis. 2d at 576 . *381 When tort law is changed, the court is concerned about exposing to liability individuals and institutions who would have obtained liability insurance had they known they would no longer enjoy immunity. 8 In several cases abrogating tqrt immunities, we have therefore held that the decision applies'to the case at bar and cases arising | 1 | 1986–1986 |
In re the Medical Incapacity of Jurgensen
green
1 sentence1982He cites State v. Schulz, 102 Wis. 2d 423 , 307 N.W.2d 151 (1981), as support for his contention that the instruction shifted the burden of persuasion as opposed to the burden of production. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Schulz
green
1 sentence1982He cites State v. Schulz, 102 Wis. 2d 423 , 307 N.W.2d 151 (1981), as support for his contention that the instruction shifted the burden of persuasion as opposed to the burden of production. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.