15 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2021For the reasons that follow, we reject Gengler’s claims. ¶9 We review claims for ineffective assistance of counsel under the two- part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2014We further determine that Hunt's ineffective assistance of counsel arguments fail under the two- part inquiry of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Hamptongreen1 sentence2020See Hampton, 330 Wis. 2d 531, ¶23 . ¶15 “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2020Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 225 Wis. 2d 305, 341, 348 , 592 N.W.2d 201 (1999)). ¶41 To determine whether the "other property" exception applies, we apply a two part test. 2020Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 225 Wis. 2d 305, 341, 348 , 592 N.W.2d 201 (1999)). ¶41 To determine whether the "other property" exception applies, we apply a two part test. | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Lockhartgreen1 sentence2019Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen1 sentence2018See Terry, 392 U.S. at 19-20 ; see United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Sharpegreen1 sentence2018See Terry, 392 U.S. at 19-20 ; see United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Scheffergreen1 sentence2016It also permits the court to determine whether that evidence is "clearly central to the defense and the exclusion of the evidence is arbitrary and disproportionate to the purpose of the rule of exclusion, so that exclusion 'undermine [s] fundamental elements of the defendant's defense.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 315 (1998)) (alteration in St. | 1 | 1 |
City of Oak Creek v. Kinggreen2 sentences1989See City of Oak Creek v. King, 148 Wis. 2d 532, 546 , 436 N.W.2d 285 (1989). 1989See City of Oak Creek v. King, 148 Wis. 2d 532, 546 , 436 N.W.2d 285 (1989). | 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. Michael R. Tullberg
green
2 sentences2025State v. Tullberg, 2014 WI 134, ¶27 , 359 Wis. 2d 421 , 857 N.W.2d 120 (citation omitted). 2025State v. Tullberg, 2014 WI 134, ¶27 , 359 Wis. 2d 421 , 857 N.W.2d 120 (citation omitted). | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Braylon Seifert v. Kay M. Balink, M.D.
green
2 sentences2023An appellate court’s review of a trial court’s admission of expert witness testimony is guided by a two part test: first, whether the trial court applied the proper legal standard; and second, whether the trial court “properly exercised its discretion in determining which factors should be considered in assessing reliability, and in applying the reliability standard to determine whether to admit or exclude evidence under []§ 907.02(1).” Seifert v. Balink, 2017 WI 2, ¶90 , 372 Wis. 2d 525 , 888 N.W.2d 816 (footnote omitted). 2023An appellate court’s review of a trial court’s admission of expert witness testimony is guided by a two part test: first, whether the trial court applied the proper legal standard; and second, whether the trial court “properly exercised its discretion in determining which factors should be considered in assessing reliability, and in applying the reliability standard to determine whether to admit or exclude evidence under []§ 907.02(1).” Seifert v. Balink, 2017 WI 2, ¶90 , 372 Wis. 2d 525 , 888 N.W.2d 816 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Forbush
green
1 sentence2022Forbush, 332 Wis. 2d 620, ¶10 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Lewis O. Floyd, Jr.
green
1 sentence2018But the circuit court's application of the historical facts to constitutional principles is a question of law we review independently." Id. (internal citations omitted). ¶10 The reasonableness of a traffic stop involves a two- part inquiry: first, whether the initial seizure was justified and, second, whether subsequent police conduct "was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified" the initial interference. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Showers Appraisals, LLC v. Musson Bros., Inc.
green
1 sentence2017II ¶66 The majority opinion appropriately applies the two- part framework for analyzing government contractor immunity, determining first whether the contractor was an agent and second whether the action was one for which immunity is available Majority op., ¶¶19-20 (citing Showers, 350 Wis. 2d 509 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Ameritech Corp.
green
2 sentences2007In State v. Ameritech Corp., 185 Wis. 2d 686 , 517 N.W.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1994), the court of appeals set forth a two part test to determine whether a party has a constitutional right to have a statutory claim tried to a jury: "(1) the statute codifies an action known to the common law in 1848; and (2) the action was regarded as at law in 1848." Id. at 690 . 2007In State v. Ameritech Corp., 185 Wis. 2d 686 , 517 N.W.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1994), the court of appeals set forth a two part test to determine whether a party has a constitutional right to have a statutory claim tried to a jury: "(1) the statute codifies an action known to the common law in 1848; and (2) the action was regarded as at law in 1848." Id. at 690 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.