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.
24 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2026 7 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. Bentleygreen2 sentences2023The court may deny the motion without an evidentiary hearing, however, if the motion “fails to allege sufficient facts … to raise a question of fact, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief.” Id. (citation omitted). 2021State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310 , 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996). ¶16 However, the trial court has the discretion to deny a motion without an evidentiary hearing if: “(1) the defendant failed to allege sufficient facts in his or her motion to raise a question of fact; (2) the defendant presented only conclusory allegations; or (3) the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief.” Velez, 224 Wis. 2d at 17 . | 3 | 11 |
Waukesha County v. Steven H.green2 sentences2019See id. , ¶43. ¶11 Whether a parent has presented a prima facie case by showing deficiencies in the colloquy and by alleging that the parent did not know or understand the information that should have been provided by the circuit court, is a question of law that we review de novo. 2018See id. , ¶ 43. ¶ 14 Whether a parent has made this prima facie showing is a question of law that we review de novo . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Boothgreen2 sentences1993More specifically, Washington asserts that the trial court was in error *213 because it denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. [1] Following sentencing, a defendant who seeks to withdraw a guilty or nolo contendere plea carries the heavy burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the trial court should permit the defendant to withdraw the plea to correct a "manifest injustice." See State v. Booth, 142 Wis. 2d 232, 235, 237 , 418 N.W.2d 20, 21, 22 (Ct. App. 1987). 1993More specifically, Washington asserts that the trial court was in error *213 because it denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. [1] Following sentencing, a defendant who seeks to withdraw a guilty or nolo contendere plea carries the heavy burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the trial court should permit the defendant to withdraw the plea to correct a "manifest injustice." See State v. Booth, 142 Wis. 2d 232, 235, 237 , 418 N.W.2d 20, 21, 22 (Ct. App. 1987). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Balliettegreen1 sentence2021See Balliette, 336 Wis. 2d 358, ¶18 .10 By the Court.—Orders affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Richard J. Sullagreen2 sentences2020See State v. Sulla, 2016 WI 46, ¶27 , 369 Wis. 2d 225 , 880 N.W.2d 659 (“‘[I]f the defendant fails to allege sufficient facts in his motion to raise a question of fact, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,’” the court may exercise its discretion to deny the motion without an evidentiary hearing (quoted source omitted)); State v. Howell, 2007 WI 75, ¶78 , 301 Wis. 2d 350 , 734 N.W.2d 48 (we independently review the legal question of whether a postconviction motion sets forth sufficient facts to entitle 2020See State v. Sulla, 2016 WI 46, ¶27 , 369 Wis. 2d 225 , 880 N.W.2d 659 (“‘[I]f the defendant fails to allege sufficient facts in his motion to raise a question of fact, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,’” the court may exercise its discretion to deny the motion without an evidentiary hearing (quoted source omitted)); State v. Howell, 2007 WI 75, ¶78 , 301 Wis. 2d 350 , 734 N.W.2d 48 (we independently review the legal question of whether a postconviction motion sets forth sufficient facts to entitle | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Claudia B. Bauer v. Wisconsin Energy Corporation
green
2 sentences2026Properly construed as a motion for reconsideration, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by denying the State’s second waiver petition without an evidentiary hearing. ¶39 Having concluded that the State’s second waiver petition was properly construed as a motion for reconsideration, we turn to whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. ¶40 “[A] circuit court possesses inherent discretion to entertain motions to reconsider ‘nonfinal’ pre-trial rulings.” Bauer v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., 2022 WI 11, 2026Properly construed as a motion for reconsideration, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by denying the State’s second waiver petition without an evidentiary hearing. ¶39 Having concluded that the State’s second waiver petition was properly construed as a motion for reconsideration, we turn to whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. ¶40 “[A] circuit court possesses inherent discretion to entertain motions to reconsider ‘nonfinal’ pre-trial rulings.” Bauer v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., 2022 WI 11, | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Tucker
green
2 sentences2025Id. at 497-98 . ¶8 Relying on State v. Tucker, 2003 WI 12 , 259 Wis. 2d 484 , 657 N.W.2d 374 , Bergner argues that the trial court was required to make proper 4 findings before it could restrict any juror information during voir dire. 2025Id. at 497-98 . ¶8 Relying on State v. Tucker, 2003 WI 12 , 259 Wis. 2d 484 , 657 N.W.2d 374 , Bergner argues that the trial court was required to make proper 4 findings before it could restrict any juror information during voir dire. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Nelson v. State
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 497-98 . ¶8 Relying on State v. Tucker, 2003 WI 12 , 259 Wis. 2d 484 , 657 N.W.2d 374 , Bergner argues that the trial court was required to make proper 4 findings before it could restrict any juror information during voir dire. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Swain v. Alabama
red
1 sentence2022With respect to the judge's interactions with the juror, the court concluded it could not find "the juror's health issue which arose in this case prior to closing arguments constituted a critical stage of the proceedings in which the defendant needed assistance with a legal problem and where counsel's presence was essential." The court determined that even if it were error to meet with the juror outside the summon jurors resulted in an unconstitutional racial composition of the jury panel, which in this case consisted of 2 Black citizens on the panel of 35, in violation of Swain v. Alabama, 38 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Garner
green
2 sentences2021In addition, where the trial court has discretion to grant an evidentiary hearing, the trial court must take into consideration “the record, the motion, counsels’ arguments and/or offers of proof, and the law.” Id. at 17-18 (citing State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520 , 534- 35, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996)). ¶17 To start, we observe that during the trial court proceedings, Green did not request an evidentiary hearing or make any objection when the trial court proceeded to resolve the motion without a hearing. 2021In addition, where the trial court has discretion to grant an evidentiary hearing, the trial court must take into consideration “the record, the motion, counsels’ arguments and/or offers of proof, and the law.” Id. at 17-18 (citing State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520 , 534- 35, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996)). ¶17 To start, we observe that during the trial court proceedings, Green did not request an evidentiary hearing or make any objection when the trial court proceeded to resolve the motion without a hearing. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Velez
green
2 sentences2021In addition, where the trial court has discretion to grant an evidentiary hearing, the trial court must take into consideration “the record, the motion, counsels’ arguments and/or offers of proof, and the law.” Id. at 17-18 (citing State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520 , 534- 35, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996)). ¶17 To start, we observe that during the trial court proceedings, Green did not request an evidentiary hearing or make any objection when the trial court proceeded to resolve the motion without a hearing. 2021State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310 , 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996). ¶16 However, the trial court has the discretion to deny a motion without an evidentiary hearing if: “(1) the defendant failed to allege sufficient facts in his or her motion to raise a question of fact; (2) the defendant presented only conclusory allegations; or (3) the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief.” Velez, 224 Wis. 2d at 17 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Howell
green
2 sentences2020See State v. Sulla, 2016 WI 46, ¶27 , 369 Wis. 2d 225 , 880 N.W.2d 659 (“‘[I]f the defendant fails to allege sufficient facts in his motion to raise a question of fact, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,’” the court may exercise its discretion to deny the motion without an evidentiary hearing (quoted source omitted)); State v. Howell, 2007 WI 75, ¶78 , 301 Wis. 2d 350 , 734 N.W.2d 48 (we independently review the legal question of whether a postconviction motion sets forth sufficient facts to entitle 2020See State v. Sulla, 2016 WI 46, ¶27 , 369 Wis. 2d 225 , 880 N.W.2d 659 (“‘[I]f the defendant fails to allege sufficient facts in his motion to raise a question of fact, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,’” the court may exercise its discretion to deny the motion without an evidentiary hearing (quoted source omitted)); State v. Howell, 2007 WI 75, ¶78 , 301 Wis. 2d 350 , 734 N.W.2d 48 (we independently review the legal question of whether a postconviction motion sets forth sufficient facts to entitle | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Phillips
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Scruggs
green
2 sentences2018Relying substantially on State v. Scruggs , 2015 WI App 88 , 365 Wis.2d 568 , 872 N.W.2d 146 , the circuit court concluded that the plea hearing court did not have a duty to inform Freiboth about the surcharges before accepting his guilty pleas and therefore he is not entitled to withdraw his pleas on this basis. 2018Relying substantially on State v. Scruggs , 2015 WI App 88 , 365 Wis.2d 568 , 872 N.W.2d 146 , the circuit court concluded that the plea hearing court did not have a duty to inform Freiboth about the surcharges before accepting his guilty pleas and therefore he is not entitled to withdraw his pleas on this basis. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Love
green
1 sentence2018Id. , ¶ 23. ¶ 84 This court remanded for an evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Loop v. State
green
2 sentences1976Loop v. State (1974), 65 Wis. 2d 499 , 222 N. W. 2d 694 . [1] The basic issue, then, is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. 1976Loop v. State (1974), 65 Wis. 2d 499 , 222 N. W. 2d 694 . [1] The basic issue, then, is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.