supremacy clause in Wisconsin

2016Comm'n, 178 Wis. 2d 776, 786 , 505 N.W.2d 793 (Ct. App. 1993) (footnote omitted).

2016Comm'n, 178 Wis. 2d 776, 786 , 505 N.W.2d 793 (Ct. App. 1993) (footnote omitted).

2009Because the federal bankruptcy courts defer to the sovereignty of the state in criminal prosecutions, the restitution order does not violate the supremacy clause of the federal constitution." State v. Foley, 142 Wis.2d 331, 341-42 , 417 N.W.2d 920 (Ct.App.1987) (citing Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 37 , 107 S.Ct. 353 , 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986) (declining to permit the discharge in bankruptcy of restitution ordered in a criminal case citing "the deep conviction that federal bankruptcy courts should not invalidate the results of state criminal proceedings")). [24] The sentence also mentions exten

2009Because the federal bankruptcy courts defer to the sovereignty of the state in criminal prosecutions, the restitution order does not violate the supremacy clause of the federal constitution." State v. Foley, 142 Wis.2d 331, 341-42 , 417 N.W.2d 920 (Ct.App.1987) (citing Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 37 , 107 S.Ct. 353 , 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986) (declining to permit the discharge in bankruptcy of restitution ordered in a criminal case citing "the deep conviction that federal bankruptcy courts should not invalidate the results of state criminal proceedings")). [24] The sentence also mentions exten

2009Because the federal bankruptcy courts defer to the sovereignty of the state in criminal prosecutions, the restitution order does not violate the supremacy clause of the federal constitution." State v. Foley, 142 Wis.2d 331, 341-42 , 417 N.W.2d 920 (Ct.App.1987) (citing Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 37 , 107 S.Ct. 353 , 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986) (declining to permit the discharge in bankruptcy of restitution ordered in a criminal case citing "the deep conviction that federal bankruptcy courts should not invalidate the results of state criminal proceedings")). [24] The sentence also mentions exten

2009Because the federal bankruptcy courts defer to the sovereignty of the state in criminal prosecutions, the restitution order does not violate the supremacy clause of the federal constitution." State v. Foley, 142 Wis.2d 331, 341-42 , 417 N.W.2d 920 (Ct.App.1987) (citing Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 37 , 107 S.Ct. 353 , 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986) (declining to permit the discharge in bankruptcy of restitution ordered in a criminal case citing "the deep conviction that federal bankruptcy courts should not invalidate the results of state criminal proceedings")). [24] The sentence also mentions exten

2009Because the federal bankruptcy courts defer to the sovereignty of the state in criminal prosecutions, the restitution order does not violate the supremacy clause of the federal constitution." State v. Foley, 142 Wis.2d 331, 341-42 , 417 N.W.2d 920 (Ct.App.1987) (citing Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 37 , 107 S.Ct. 353 , 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986) (declining to permit the discharge in bankruptcy of restitution ordered in a criminal case citing "the deep conviction that federal bankruptcy courts should not invalidate the results of state criminal proceedings")). [24] The sentence also mentions exten

2009Because the federal bankruptcy courts defer to the sovereignty of the state in criminal prosecutions, the restitution order does not violate the supremacy clause of the federal constitution." State v. Foley, 142 Wis.2d 331, 341-42 , 417 N.W.2d 920 (Ct.App.1987) (citing Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 37 , 107 S.Ct. 353 , 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986) (declining to permit the discharge in bankruptcy of restitution ordered in a criminal case citing "the deep conviction that federal bankruptcy courts should not invalidate the results of state criminal proceedings")). [24] The sentence also mentions exten

2003Sup. Ct. 1993) (same, and further concluding that to the extent state statutes might restrict a guardian from establishing a Medicaid-qualifying trust recognized by federal law, "they are not binding *692 on this court since any such inconsistency would be violative of the supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution). 6 The Connecticut Supreme Court noted in Department of Social Services v. Saunders, 724 A.2d 1093 (Conn. 1999), that a probate court in that state may exert considerable influence over the terms of the trust, thus ensuring that the trust would he managed to the court's satisfactio

2002Hogan v. Musolf, 163 Wis. 2d 1, 12 , 471 N.W.2d 216 (1991).

2002Hogan v. Musolf, 163 Wis. 2d 1, 12 , 471 N.W.2d 216 (1991).

1995Id.

1995Id.

1994Id. at 775-79 , 424 N.W.2d at 761-63 . 11 Even if the motion had been properly before the court, we question whether § 806.07, Stats., can appropriately be used to, in essence, sanction a party for non-payment of a judgment. 12 Because the issue is not briefed and the record on appeal contains no insight from the bankruptcy court, we express no opinion as to which of Patricia's theories of nondischargeability may be argued in the state court upon remand.

1994Id. at 775-79 , 424 N.W.2d at 761-63 . 11 Even if the motion had been properly before the court, we question whether § 806.07, Stats., can appropriately be used to, in essence, sanction a party for non-payment of a judgment. 12 Because the issue is not briefed and the record on appeal contains no insight from the bankruptcy court, we express no opinion as to which of Patricia's theories of nondischargeability may be argued in the state court upon remand.

1993The Secretary of the Army, acting under authority delegated by the President as commander-in-chief, see Gilligan, 413 U.S. at 6-7 , issued Army Regulation 600-110 authorizing the termination of membership of HIV-positive members of the national guard.

1993The Secretary of the Army, acting under authority delegated by the President as commander-in-chief, see Gilligan, 413 U.S. at 6-7 , issued Army Regulation 600-110 authorizing the termination of membership of HIV-positive members of the national guard.

1992By the Court. — Judgment reversed. 1 The recent United States Supreme Court decision Farrey v. Sanderfoot, 500 U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 1825 (1991), does not apply in this case and therefore whether Farrey would have retroactive affect need not be addressed.

1990Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs, 471 U.S. 707, 712 (1985); City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973).

1990Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs, 471 U.S. 707, 712 (1985); City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973). *22 [3] In general, it can be said, however, that the general presumption that arises out of the federal system of dual sovereignty is that there shall be no preemption unless that intent of congress is rather clear.

1983On the other hand, because lower federal courts exercise no appellate jurisdiction over state tribunals, decisions of lower federal courts are not conclusive on state courts.” The Supreme Court discussed the question of awarding attorney’s fees under sec. 1988 in the recent case of Hensley v. Eckerhart, - U.S. -, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983).

1983On the other hand, because lower federal courts exercise no appellate jurisdiction over state tribunals, decisions of lower federal courts are not conclusive on state courts." The Supreme Court discussed the question of awarding attorney's fees under sec. 1988 in the recent case of Hensley v. Eckerhart, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983).

1981See Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U.S. 598, 600-01 (1972); King, 392 U.S. at 316 .

1980Townsend v. Swank, 404 U.S. 282 (1971).

1975Florida Lime and Avocado Growers v. Paul (1963) 373 U.S. 132 , 141 , 83 S.Ct. 1210 , 1217 , 10 L.Ed.2d 248 , 256 .

1975Florida Lime and Avocado Growers v. Paul (1963) 373 U.S. 132 , 141 , 83 S.Ct. 1210 , 1217 , 10 L.Ed.2d 248 , 256 .