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 1978–2025 4 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. Sorensongreen2 sentences2025“Contemporaneity and spontaneity of statements are not as crucial in admitting hearsay statements of young sexual assault victims under the residual exception.” Id. 2021However, it does not appear from the record that N.G. explicitly indicated a date range wherein the assaults occurred, and the State acknowledged that "it seems unclear when exactly 28 No. 2018AP2419-CR spontaneity of statements are not as crucial in admitting hearsay statement[s] of young sexual assault victims under the residual exception." Sorenson, 143 Wis. 2d at 249 ; see also Huntington, 216 Wis. 2d 671, ¶30 (noting that a two-week period between the assault and the statement did not detract from its trustworthiness). | 1 | 12 |
State v. Huntingtongreen2 sentences2025That is, we examine not whether we agree with the determination to admit or deny admission of the evidence, but whether the decision maker, here the administrator, exercised his discretion “in accordance with accepted legal standards and in accordance with the facts of record.” Id. ¶44 DOC makes no detailed argument here that K.A.B.’s statement is accompanied by sufficient indicia of reliability so as to be admissible under the residual exception.11 In briefing, it contends that K.A.B.’s statements have “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” based on corroboration by the non-hearsay ev 2021However, it does not appear from the record that N.G. explicitly indicated a date range wherein the assaults occurred, and the State acknowledged that "it seems unclear when exactly 28 No. 2018AP2419-CR spontaneity of statements are not as crucial in admitting hearsay statement[s] of young sexual assault victims under the residual exception." Sorenson, 143 Wis. 2d at 249 ; see also Huntington, 216 Wis. 2d 671, ¶30 (noting that a two-week period between the assault and the statement did not detract from its trustworthiness). | 1 | 3 |
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences1997Statements admitted under the residual exception to the hearsay rule " 'do not share the same tradition of reliability that supports the admissibility of statements under a firmly rooted hearsay exception' for purposes of the confrontation clause." Lomprey, 173 Wis. 2d at 218 , 496 N.W.2d at 176 (quoting Wright, 497 U.S. at 817 ). 1997Statements admitted under the residual exception to the hearsay rule " 'do not share the same tradition of reliability that supports the admissibility of statements under a firmly rooted hearsay exception' for purposes of the confrontation clause." Lomprey, 173 Wis. 2d at 218 , 496 N.W.2d at 176 (quoting Wright, 497 U.S. at 817 ). | 1 | 2 |
Bertrang v. Stategreen2 sentences1986Using the factors for the “excited utterance” exception for children discussed in Bertrang v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 702, 708 , 184 N.W.2d 867, 870 (1971), the state argues that the child’s statement to the social worker is trustworthy and therefore qualifies for the residual exception. 1986Using the factors for the “excited utterance” exception for children discussed in Bertrang v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 702, 708 , 184 N.W.2d 867, 870 (1971), the state argues that the child’s statement to the social worker is trustworthy and therefore qualifies for the residual exception. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Stevensgreen2 sentences1999The residual exception should only be applied to the "novel or unanticipated category of hearsay that does not fall *485 under one of the named categories." State v. Stevens, 171 Wis. 2d 106, 120 , 490 N.W.2d 753, 760 (Ct. App. 1992). 1999The residual exception should only be applied to the "novel or unanticipated category of hearsay that does not fall *485 under one of the named categories." State v. Stevens, 171 Wis. 2d 106, 120 , 490 N.W.2d 753, 760 (Ct. App. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Patinogreen2 sentences1999See State v. Patino, 177 Wis. 2d 348, 362 , 502 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Ct. App. 1993). 1999See State v. Patino, 177 Wis. 2d 348, 362 , 502 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Ct. App. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gerald L. C.green1 sentence1998See Gerald L.C., 194 Wis. 2d at 560 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jagielskigreen2 sentences1992The state cites Sor-enson, 143 Wis. 2d at 245-46 , 421 N.W.2d at 84-85 , and State v. Jagielski, 161 Wis. 2d 67, 73-74 , 467 N.W.2d 196, 198 (Ct. App. 1991), for five factors that courts should consider in assessing whether a child's statements should be admitted under the residual exception and applies these factors to Melissa's statement. *121 However, Sorenson and Jagielski are both sexual assault cases involving small children. 1992The state cites Sor-enson, 143 Wis. 2d at 245-46 , 421 N.W.2d at 84-85 , and State v. Jagielski, 161 Wis. 2d 67, 73-74 , 467 N.W.2d 196, 198 (Ct. App. 1991), for five factors that courts should consider in assessing whether a child's statements should be admitted under the residual exception and applies these factors to Melissa's statement. *121 However, Sorenson and Jagielski are both sexual assault cases involving small children. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell v. State
green
2 sentences1986“The residual exception thus focuses... on the character of the statements and the circumstances under which they are made_” Mitchell, 84 Wis. 2d at 333 , 267 N.W.2d at 353 . 1986“The residual exception thus focuses... on the character of the statements and the circumstances under which they are made_” Mitchell, 84 Wis. 2d at 333 , 267 N.W.2d at 353 . | 3 | 1986–2005 |
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
green
2 sentences2013In Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District v. DNR, 126 Wis. 2d 63, 73 , 375 N.W.2d 648 (1985), the court declared that Wis. Stat. § 227.42 "creates a residual hearing right. 2013Sewerage Dist. v. DNR, 126 Wis. 2d 63 , 375 N.W.2d 648 (1985), for holding that the precursor of Wis. Stat. § 227.42 (1) is clear and unambiguous in creating a residual hearing right as a safety net). | 2 | 1986–2013 |
Bilda v. County of Milwaukee
green
2 sentences2021“It is a well-established rule that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” See Bilda v. County of Milwaukee, 2006 WI App 57 , ¶20 n.7, 292 Wis. 2d 212 , 713 N.W.2d 661 . 2021“It is a well-established rule that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” See Bilda v. County of Milwaukee, 2006 WI App 57 , ¶20 n.7, 292 Wis. 2d 212 , 713 N.W.2d 661 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Snider
green
2 sentences2014That section permits the admission of "[a] statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having comparable circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." Wis. Stat. § 908.03 (24). ¶240 In Snider, the court upheld the use of the residual exception to admit an audiovisual recording of a child victim's statement that did not meet the requirements set forth in Wis. Stat. § 908.08 . 266 Wis. 2d 830, ¶16 . 2014In Snider , the court upheld the use of the residual exception to admit an audiovisual recording of a child victim's statement that did not meet the requirements set forth in Wis. Stat. § 908.08 . 266 Wis. 2d 830, ¶ 16 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Koch
green
2 sentences2005While Anderson argues that the State waived any claim that this testimony would qualify under the residual exception, this court must "search the record for any substantial ground based on competent evidence to support the circuit court's bindover decision." Koch, 175 Wis. 2d at 704 . ¶ 55. 2005While Anderson argues that the State waived any claim that this testimony would qualify under the residual exception, this court must "search the record for any substantial ground based on competent evidence to support the circuit court's bindover decision." Koch, 175 Wis. 2d at 704 . ¶55 We begin our analysis by noting that "[t]he rules of evidence apply at a preliminary hearing." State v. Sorenson, 143 Wis. 2d 226, 240 , 421 N.W.2d 77 (1988). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Bintz
green
2 sentences2003We are convinced that State v. Bintz, 2002 WI App 204 , 257 Wis. 2d 177 , 650 N.W.2d 913 , review denied, 2002 WI 121 , 257 Wis. 2d 119 , 653 N.W.2d 891 (Wis. Oct. 21, 2002) (No. 01-2670-CR), holds the former testimony hearsay exception to be "firmly rooted." While we question the holding in Bintz , we are bound by it and it dooms Hale's argument. 2003We are convinced that State v. Bintz, 2002 WI App 204 , 257 Wis. 2d 177 , 650 N.W.2d 913 , review denied, 2002 WI 121 , 257 Wis. 2d 119 , 653 N.W.2d 891 (Wis. Oct. 21, 2002) (No. 01-2670-CR), holds the former testimony hearsay exception to be "firmly rooted." While we question the holding in Bintz , we are bound by it and it dooms Hale's argument. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Oliver
green
2 sentences2001See id. at 242 ; State v. Oliver, 161 Wis. 2d 140, 143 , 467 N.W.2d 211 (Ct. App. 1991). 2001See id. at 242 ; State v. Oliver, 161 Wis. 2d 140, 143 , 467 N.W.2d 211 (Ct. App. 1991). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Peters
green
2 sentences1998In State v. Peters, 166 Wis. 2d 168, 179-80 , 479 N.W.2d 198 (Ct. App. 1991), the court of appeals emphasized that "before otherwise inadmissible statements can be admitted under the residual exception, we must be confident that there are guarantees of trustworthiness sufficient to allow the jury to depend on such evidence to make decisions of the utmost importance." ¶ 60. 1998In State v. Peters, 166 Wis. 2d 168, 179-80 , 479 N.W.2d 198 (Ct. App. 1991), the court of appeals emphasized that "before otherwise inadmissible statements can be admitted under the residual exception, we must be confident that there are guarantees of trustworthiness sufficient to allow the jury to depend on such evidence to make decisions of the utmost importance." ¶ 60. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Lomprey
green
2 sentences1997Statements admitted under the residual exception to the hearsay rule " 'do not share the same tradition of reliability that supports the admissibility of statements under a firmly rooted hearsay exception' for purposes of the confrontation clause." Lomprey, 173 Wis. 2d at 218 , 496 N.W.2d at 176 (quoting Wright, 497 U.S. at 817 ). 1997Statements admitted under the residual exception to the hearsay rule " 'do not share the same tradition of reliability that supports the admissibility of statements under a firmly rooted hearsay exception' for purposes of the confrontation clause." Lomprey, 173 Wis. 2d at 218 , 496 N.W.2d at 176 (quoting Wright, 497 U.S. at 817 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Wirth v. State
green
2 sentences1978As illustrations of the hearsay exceptions which can be fashioned under the residual exception, the drafters cite Wirth v. State, 55 Wis.2d 11 , 197 N.W.2d 731 (1972), in which we held that the label on a prepacked, sealed bottle of codeine-type cough syrup, although hearsay, was supported by sufficient surrounding circumstances to be admissible in evidence to establish the contents; and Bertrang v. State, 50 Wis.2d 702 , 184 N.W.2d 867 (1971), in which we held that a mother’s testimony concerning statements made to her by a young child victim of a sexual assault or traumatic experience is an 1978As illustrations of the hearsay exceptions which can be fashioned under the residual exception, the drafters cite Wirth v. State, 55 Wis.2d 11 , 197 N.W.2d 731 (1972), in which we held that the label on a prepacked, sealed bottle of codeine-type cough syrup, although hearsay, was supported by sufficient surrounding circumstances to be admissible in evidence to establish the contents; and Bertrang v. State, 50 Wis.2d 702 , 184 N.W.2d 867 (1971), in which we held that a mother’s testimony concerning statements made to her by a young child victim of a sexual assault or traumatic experience is an | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Nowakowski
green
2 sentences1978In State v. Nowakowski, 67 Wis.2d 545 , 227 N.W.2d 697 (1975), we held it proper to admit as a residual exception a document indicating the time of the formation of a campaign committee because the document “was a public document, filed under oath, was actually notarized by the defendant, and is one having ‘circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.’ ” Id. at 561-62 . 1978In State v. Nowakowski, 67 Wis.2d 545 , 227 N.W.2d 697 (1975), we held it proper to admit as a residual exception a document indicating the time of the formation of a campaign committee because the document “was a public document, filed under oath, was actually notarized by the defendant, and is one having ‘circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.’ ” Id. at 561-62 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.