12 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Outlawgreen2 sentences2003For example, where a defendant claims misidentification, this court noted in Outlaw : "If the in camera inquiry results in the judge concluding the informer can positively identify the defendant, such testimony meets the test enunciated [in the lead opinion]." Id. at 140-41 . 2003For example, where a defendant claims misidentification, this court noted in Outlaw : "If the in camera inquiry results in the judge concluding the informer can positively identify the defendant, such testimony meets the test enunciated [in the lead opinion]." Id. at 140-41 . | 2 | 2 |
Village of Shorewood v. Steinberggreen2 sentences2019See id. ¶21 "A [trial] court properly exercises its discretion if it 'employs a logical rationale based on the appropriate legal principles and facts of record.' " Village of Shorewood v. Steinberg , 174 Wis. 2d 191 , 204, 496 N.W.2d 57 (1993) (citation omitted). 2019See id. ¶21 "A [trial] court properly exercises its discretion if it 'employs a logical rationale based on the appropriate legal principles and facts of record.' " Village of Shorewood v. Steinberg , 174 Wis. 2d 191 , 204, 496 N.W.2d 57 (1993) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jessica A. Nellessengreen1 sentence2019See id. ¶21 "A [trial] court properly exercises its discretion if it 'employs a logical rationale based on the appropriate legal principles and facts of record.' " Village of Shorewood v. Steinberg , 174 Wis. 2d 191 , 204, 496 N.W.2d 57 (1993) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Conegreen1 sentence2012See Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 695-96 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Salernogreen1 sentence1995Furthermore, the affidavit represents that DeLeon's former lawyer would "testify that his client informed him that he [Angelo DeLeon] was not the individual who [sic] law enforcement *598 officers brought before the Court for the in camera inspection." (Bracketed material other than the "[ sic]" in the original.) As pertinent to this appeal, Rule 905.10(3)(a), Stats., provides that the informer's privilege ceases to exist only if the informer's identity "has been disclosed to those who would have cause to resent" the informer's "communication" to law enforcement, and the disclosure is either b | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Eddie Leroy Andersongreen1 sentence1990The ninth circuit evaluated the results of an in camera hearing to establish probable cause and stated that, where there was no evidence that the informer could have provided testimony relative to a defense on the merits, " [i]f the trial judge is satisfied that an in camera hearing in which neither the defendant nor his attorney participates is adequate to explore the foundations of the informant's information, then no disclosure [of either the name of the informant or the underlying circumstances which made the conclusion seem reliable to government agents] is necessary." United States v. An | 1 | 1 |
State v. Padillagreen2 sentences1988It should be noted that both Stanislawski and Milenkovic involved factual situations occurring before the adoption of Wisconsin’s rape shield law in 1976. 95 Milenkovic, 86 Wis. 2d at 279 , 272 N.W.2d at 324 . 96 Id. at 281 , 272 N.W.2d at 324-25 . 97 Id. 98 Id. at 282 , 272 N.W.2d at 325 ; see also secs. 901.03(l)(b), (2) and (3) and 904.04(1), (2), Stats. 99 State v. Padilla, 110 Wis. 2d 414, 429 , 329 N.W.2d 263, 271 (Ct. App. 1982). 100 Qur supreme court has acknowledged the balancing test set forth in Davis. 1988It should be noted that both Stanislawski and Milenkovic involved factual situations occurring before the adoption of Wisconsin’s rape shield law in 1976. 95 Milenkovic, 86 Wis. 2d at 279 , 272 N.W.2d at 324 . 96 Id. at 281 , 272 N.W.2d at 324-25 . 97 Id. 98 Id. at 282 , 272 N.W.2d at 325 ; see also secs. 901.03(l)(b), (2) and (3) and 904.04(1), (2), Stats. 99 State v. Padilla, 110 Wis. 2d 414, 429 , 329 N.W.2d 263, 271 (Ct. App. 1982). 100 Qur supreme court has acknowledged the balancing test set forth in Davis. | 1 | 1 |
Noll v. Dimiceli's, Inc.green2 sentences1988Noll v. Dimiceli’s, Inc., 115 Wis. 2d 641, 643 , 340 N.W.2d 575, 577 (Ct. App. 1983). 1988Noll v. Dimiceli’s, Inc., 115 Wis. 2d 641, 643 , 340 N.W.2d 575, 577 (Ct. App. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Bon Voyage Travel Agcy., Inc.
green
2 sentences1983The decision in Rey was to grant a writ of prohibition against enforcement of the subpoena and to remand the cause to the trial court with directions to hold an in camera hearing in light of its discussion of Fisher, supra. In the case of In re Bon Voyage Travel Agency, 449 F. Supp. 250 (N.D. 1983In the case of In re Bon Voyage Travel Agency, 449 F. Supp. 250 (N.D. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Fisher v. United States
green
2 sentences1983The decision in Rey was to grant a writ of prohibition against enforcement of the subpoena and to remand the cause to the trial court with directions to hold an in camera hearing in light of its discussion of Fisher, supra. In the case of In re Bon Voyage Travel Agency, 449 F. Supp. 250 (N.D. 1983The decision in Rey was to grant a writ of prohibition against enforcement of the subpoena and to remand the cause to the trial court with directions to hold an in camera hearing in light of its discussion of Fisher, supra . | 2 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Larsen
green
2 sentences2003See State v. Outlaw, 108 Wis. 2d 112, 128-29 , 321 N.W.2d 145 (1982); State v. Norfleet, 2002 WI App 140, ¶ 9 , 254 Wis. 2d 569 , 647 N.W.2d 341 ; State v. Larsen, 141 Wis. 2d 412, 419 , 415 N.W.2d 535 (Ct. App. 1987). 2003See State v. Outlaw, 108 Wis. 2d 112, 128-29 , 321 N.W.2d 145 (1982); State v. Norfleet, 2002 WI App 140, ¶ 9 , 254 Wis. 2d 569 , 647 N.W.2d 341 ; State v. Larsen, 141 Wis. 2d 412, 419 , 415 N.W.2d 535 (Ct. App. 1987). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Norfleet
green
2 sentences2003See State v. Outlaw, 108 Wis. 2d 112, 128-29 , 321 N.W.2d 145 (1982); State v. Norfleet, 2002 WI App 140, ¶ 9 , 254 Wis. 2d 569 , 647 N.W.2d 341 ; State v. Larsen, 141 Wis. 2d 412, 419 , 415 N.W.2d 535 (Ct. App. 1987). 2003See State v. Outlaw, 108 Wis. 2d 112, 128-29 , 321 N.W.2d 145 (1982); State v. Norfleet, 2002 WI App 140, ¶ 9 , 254 Wis. 2d 569 , 647 N.W.2d 341 ; State v. Larsen, 141 Wis. 2d 412, 419 , 415 N.W.2d 535 (Ct. App. 1987). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Milenkovic v. State
green
2 sentences1988If new information is discovered during the course of the trial that may make the evidence described in subsection (lXa) or (b) admissible, the judge may order an in camera hearing to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible under subsection (1). 86 Sec. 972.11(2)(b)3, Stats. 87 111 Wis. 2d 150 , 330 N.W.2d 571 (1983). 88 Id. at 157 n. 2, 330 N.W.2d at 576 n. 2. 89 Id. at 159-61 , 330 N.W.2d at 576-78 . 90 Sec. 972.11(2)(c), Stats., enacted by 1983 Wis. Act 449, states: "Notwithstanding s. 901.06, the limitation on the admission of evidence of or reference to the prior sexual cond 1988If new information is discovered during the course of the trial that may make the evidence described in subsection (lXa) or (b) admissible, the judge may order an in camera hearing to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible under subsection (1). 86 Sec. 972.11(2)(b)3, Stats. 87 111 Wis. 2d 150 , 330 N.W.2d 571 (1983). 88 Id. at 157 n. 2, 330 N.W.2d at 576 n. 2. 89 Id. at 159-61 , 330 N.W.2d at 576-78 . 90 Sec. 972.11(2)(c), Stats., enacted by 1983 Wis. Act 449, states: "Notwithstanding s. 901.06, the limitation on the admission of evidence of or reference to the prior sexual cond | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Stanislawski
green
2 sentences1988If new information is discovered during the course of the trial that may make the evidence described in subsection (lXa) or (b) admissible, the judge may order an in camera hearing to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible under subsection (1). 86 Sec. 972.11(2)(b)3, Stats. 87 111 Wis. 2d 150 , 330 N.W.2d 571 (1983). 88 Id. at 157 n. 2, 330 N.W.2d at 576 n. 2. 89 Id. at 159-61 , 330 N.W.2d at 576-78 . 90 Sec. 972.11(2)(c), Stats., enacted by 1983 Wis. Act 449, states: "Notwithstanding s. 901.06, the limitation on the admission of evidence of or reference to the prior sexual cond 1988If new information is discovered during the course of the trial that may make the evidence described in subsection (lXa) or (b) admissible, the judge may order an in camera hearing to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible under subsection (1). 86 Sec. 972.11(2)(b)3, Stats. 87 111 Wis. 2d 150 , 330 N.W.2d 571 (1983). 88 Id. at 157 n. 2, 330 N.W.2d at 576 n. 2. 89 Id. at 159-61 , 330 N.W.2d at 576-78 . 90 Sec. 972.11(2)(c), Stats., enacted by 1983 Wis. Act 449, states: "Notwithstanding s. 901.06, the limitation on the admission of evidence of or reference to the prior sexual cond | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Gavigan
green
2 sentences1988If new information is discovered during the course of the trial that may make the evidence described in subsection (lXa) or (b) admissible, the judge may order an in camera hearing to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible under subsection (1). 86 Sec. 972.11(2)(b)3, Stats. 87 111 Wis. 2d 150 , 330 N.W.2d 571 (1983). 88 Id. at 157 n. 2, 330 N.W.2d at 576 n. 2. 89 Id. at 159-61 , 330 N.W.2d at 576-78 . 90 Sec. 972.11(2)(c), Stats., enacted by 1983 Wis. Act 449, states: "Notwithstanding s. 901.06, the limitation on the admission of evidence of or reference to the prior sexual cond 1988If new information is discovered during the course of the trial that may make the evidence described in subsection (lXa) or (b) admissible, the judge may order an in camera hearing to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible under subsection (1). 86 Sec. 972.11(2)(b)3, Stats. 87 111 Wis. 2d 150 , 330 N.W.2d 571 (1983). 88 Id. at 157 n. 2, 330 N.W.2d at 576 n. 2. 89 Id. at 159-61 , 330 N.W.2d at 576-78 . 90 Sec. 972.11(2)(c), Stats., enacted by 1983 Wis. Act 449, states: "Notwithstanding s. 901.06, the limitation on the admission of evidence of or reference to the prior sexual cond | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence1987At the in camera hearing, Judge Kelsey advised Levi and the Lundells of the applicable Wisconsin statute dealing *550 with perjured testimony, sec. 946.31, Stats., and advised them of their rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
United States v. Ernest G. Rawlinson
green
1 sentence1981United States v. Rawlinson, 487 F.2d 5 , 7 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 984 (1974). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Pennsylvania v. Felton
green
1 sentence1981United States v. Rawlinson, 487 F.2d 5 , 7 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 984 (1974). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.