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.
13 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hart v. Stategreen2 sentences1987The court held the error not harmless, citing the Wold test, but also citing the following language: "[e]rrors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.” Hart, 75 Wis. 2d at 394 , citing Woodhull v. State, 43 Wis. 2d 202, 215 , 168 N.W.2d 281 (1969). 1987The Pohl court outlines the harmless error test as follows: "In Hart v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 371 , 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977), this court held that: "'Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred. | 2 | 9 |
Woodhull v. Stategreen2 sentences1987The court held the error not harmless, citing the Wold test, but also citing the following language: "[e]rrors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.” Hart, 75 Wis. 2d at 394 , citing Woodhull v. State, 43 Wis. 2d 202, 215 , 168 N.W.2d 281 (1969). 1987The court held the error not harmless, citing the Wold test, but also citing the following language: "[e]rrors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.” Hart, 75 Wis. 2d at 394 , citing Woodhull v. State, 43 Wis. 2d 202, 215 , 168 N.W.2d 281 (1969). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Spraggingreen2 sentences2020As the Spraggin court reminds us, “errors committed at trial should not serve to overturn a judgment unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.” Id. at 101 (citation omitted). 1987See, e.g., Micale v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 370, 373, n. 2 , 251 N.W.2d 458 (1977); State v. Spraggin, 77 Wis. 2d 89, 101, n. 9 , 252 N.W.2d 94 (1977). [4] The Pohl court outlines the harmless error test as follows: "In Hart v. State, 75 Wis.2d 371 , 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977), this court held that: "`Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred. | 2 | 2 |
Novitzke v. Stategreen2 sentences1987See also: State v. Bowie, 92 Wis. 2d 192 , 284 N.W.2d 613 (1979). " 'Moreover, in Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 302 , 284 N.W.2d 904 (1979) this court set forth the test for harmless error as follows: '"Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.’ Hart v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 371 , 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977). 1987See also: State v. Bowie, 92 Wis. 2d 192 , 284 N.W.2d 613 (1979). " 'Moreover, in Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 302 , 284 N.W.2d 904 (1979) this court set forth the test for harmless error as follows: '"Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.’ Hart v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 371 , 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977). | 1 | 3 |
Micale v. Stategreen2 sentences1987See, e.g., Micale v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 370, 373, n. 2 , 251 N.W.2d 458 (1977); State v. Spraggin, 77 Wis. 2d 89, 101, n. 9 , 252 N.W.2d 94 (1977). [4] The Pohl court outlines the harmless error test as follows: "In Hart v. State, 75 Wis.2d 371 , 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977), this court held that: "`Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred. 1987See, e.g., Micale v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 370, 373, n. 2 , 251 N.W.2d 458 (1977); State v. Spraggin, 77 Wis. 2d 89, 101, n. 9 , 252 N.W.2d 94 (1977). [4] The Pohl court outlines the harmless error test as follows: "In Hart v. State, 75 Wis.2d 371 , 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977), this court held that: "`Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bowiegreen2 sentences1987See also: State v. Bowie, 92 Wis. 2d 192 , 284 N.W.2d 613 (1979). " 'Moreover, in Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 302 , 284 N.W.2d 904 (1979) this court set forth the test for harmless error as follows: '"Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.’ Hart v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 371 , 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977). 1987See also: State v. Bowie, 92 Wis. 2d 192 , 284 N.W.2d 613 (1979). " 'Moreover, in Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 302 , 284 N.W.2d 904 (1979) this court set forth the test for harmless error as follows: '"Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.’ Hart v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 371 , 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Pohl v. Stategreen2 sentences1980The test for determining harmless error was most recently set out in Pohl v. State, 96 Wis.2d 290, 311, 312 , 291 N.W.2d 554 (1980) : “ * “Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.” Hart v. State, 75 Wis.2d 371 , 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977). 1980The test for determining harmless error was most recently set out in Pohl v. State, 96 Wis.2d 290, 311, 312 , 291 N.W.2d 554 (1980) : “ * “Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.” Hart v. State, 75 Wis.2d 371 , 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wold v. State
green
2 sentences1987In Wold v. State, 57 Wis. 2d 344, 356 , 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973), a case involving improperly admitted evidence, the court stated: '"The test of harmless error is not whether some harm has resulted, but, rather, whether the appellate court in its independent determination can conclude there is sufficient evidence, other than and uninfluenced by the inadmissible evidence, which would convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. 1987In Wold v. State, 57 Wis. 2d 344, 356 , 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973), a case involving improperly admitted evidence, the court stated: '"The test of harmless error is not whether some harm has resulted, but, rather, whether the appellate court in its independent determination can conclude there is sufficient evidence, other than and uninfluenced by the inadmissible evidence, which would convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. | 4 | 1979–1987 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1984We have also applied the test that “[a] verdict will not be set aside because of the exclusion of evidence unless it would probably have a substantial influence in bringing about a different verdict.” State v. Johnson, 60 Wis. 2d 334, 341-42 , 210 N.W.2d 735 (1973). 1984We have also applied the test that “[a] verdict will not be set aside because of the exclusion of evidence unless it would probably have a substantial influence in bringing about a different verdict.” State v. Johnson, 60 Wis. 2d 334, 341-42 , 210 N.W.2d 735 (1973). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Sonnenberg
green
2 sentences1984In addition, this court has stated that “. . . errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears that the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.” Sonnenberg, 117 Wis. 2d at 179 . 1984In addition, this court has stated that "... errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless *691 it appears that the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred." Sonnenberg, 117 Wis. 2d at 179 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.