12 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Solid Waste Agency Of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps Of Engineersgreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook Cnty. v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 101 F.3d 503, 508-09 (7th Cir. 1996); Americans United, 922 F.2d at 306 ; Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC, 334 F.R.D. 1 , 1 (D.D.C. 2019) (permitting a third party to intervene to defend an election-related suit where FEC defaulted after failing to garner enough votes to defend the action). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brian S. Kempainengreen2 sentences2021Here, based on all of the circumstances, we apply the rule of forfeiture against the State, reject on that ground its argument about the timeliness of Gibson’s motion, and accordingly decide the issue raised on the merits. 10 Our supreme court instructs that the first three factors are “especially important given the nature of child sexual assault cases.” Kempainen, 361 Wis. 2d 450, ¶29 . 2021See Kempainen, 361 Wis. 2d 450, ¶29 . ¶50 Gibson states that this factor is a “mixed picture,” and argues only that the details given by the victims do not help him present a defense. ¶51 The charging periods were broad, but this factor alone does not render the complaints constitutionally insufficient. | 1 | 1 |
State v. RARgreen1 sentence2015In R.A.R., the court determined that "the first three factors apply when the defendant claims that the State could have obtained a more definite date through diligent efforts." 9 R.A.R., 148 Wis. 2d at 411. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Millergreen1 sentence2014See Miller, 257 Wis. 2d 124, ¶ 30 ; Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d at 251 n.2, 253. | 1 | 1 |
Sumnicht v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.green2 sentences1999Although determining whether a product is defective and whether a product is unreasonably dangerous are two separate inquiries, see Sumnicht v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 121 Wis. 2d 338, 367 , 360 N.W.2d 2, 15 (1984), as a practical matter courts usually address them together. 1999Although determining whether a product is defective and whether a product is unreasonably dangerous are two separate inquiries, see Sumnicht v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 121 Wis. 2d 338, 367 , 360 N.W.2d 2, 15 (1984), as a practical matter courts usually address them together. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Leonard David Griffingreen1 sentence1998United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343, 1349 (8th Cir. 1990). 3 The Griffin court stated: Police deployment of strong arm tactics or deceptive stratagems during interrogation, number four in the list of indicia of custody enumerated above, is a practice widely condemned in American law. | 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 Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County
green
2 sentences2022There, we stated that: To justify the writ, a petitioner must demonstrate that: "(1) an appeal is an inadequate remedy; (2) grave hardship or irreparable harm will result; (3) the duty of the trial court is plain and it . . . acted or intends to act in violation of that duty; and (4) the request for relief is made promptly and speedily." Id., ¶9 (quoting Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶17 ). ¶18 We will consider only the first three factors identified above, as there is no dispute that Kormanik "promptly and speedily" filed her writ petition by doing so the day after the court of appeals issued its v 2022There, we stated that: To justify the writ, a petitioner must demonstrate that: "(1) an appeal is an inadequate remedy; (2) grave hardship or irreparable harm will result; (3) the duty of the trial court is plain and it . . . acted or intends to act in violation of that duty; and (4) the request for relief is made promptly and speedily." Id., ¶9 (quoting Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶17 ). ¶18 We will consider only the first three factors identified above, as there is no dispute that Kormanik "promptly and speedily" filed her writ petition by doing so the day after the court of appeals issued its v | 4 | 2018–2022 |
Department of Natural Resources v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV
green
2 sentences2022There, we stated that: To justify the writ, a petitioner must demonstrate that: "(1) an appeal is an inadequate remedy; (2) grave hardship or irreparable harm will result; (3) the duty of the trial court is plain and it . . . acted or intends to act in violation of that duty; and (4) the request for relief is made promptly and speedily." Id., ¶9 (quoting Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶17 ). ¶18 We will consider only the first three factors identified above, as there is no dispute that Kormanik "promptly and speedily" filed her writ petition by doing so the day after the court of appeals issued its v 2022There, we stated that: To justify the writ, a petitioner must demonstrate that: "(1) an appeal is an inadequate remedy; (2) grave hardship or irreparable harm will result; (3) the duty of the trial court is plain and it . . . acted or intends to act in violation of that duty; and (4) the request for relief is made promptly and speedily." Id., ¶9 (quoting Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶17 ). ¶18 We will consider only the first three factors identified above, as there is no dispute that Kormanik "promptly and speedily" filed her writ petition by doing so the day after the court of appeals issued its v | 3 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Fawcett
green
2 sentences2014See Miller, 257 Wis. 2d 124, ¶ 30 ; Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d at 251 n.2, 253. 2014Furthermore, as the State points out, to read R.A.R. as Kempainen suggests would permit defendants in cases involving delayed reporting by a young child to "avoid the three factors most likely to weigh against [the defendant] by simply declining to allege a lack of diligence by the State." We do not read our decision in State v. Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d 244 , 426 N.W.2d 91 (Ct. App. 1988), as intending to give one party the ability to control a court's considerations regarding the sufficiency of a charge simply through strategic pleading. | 3 | 1988–2014 |
cluster 553377
green
1 sentence2024See, e.g., Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook Cnty. v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 101 F.3d 503, 508-09 (7th Cir. 1996); Americans United, 922 F.2d at 306 ; Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC, 334 F.R.D. 1 , 1 (D.D.C. 2019) (permitting a third party to intervene to defend an election-related suit where FEC defaulted after failing to garner enough votes to defend the action). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Holesome v. State
green
2 sentences2015First, we hold that in child sexual assault cases courts may apply the seven factors outlined in Fawcett , and may consider any other relevant factors necessary to determine whether the complaint and information "states an offense to which [the defendant can] plead and prepare a defense." Holesome v. State, 40 Wis. 2d 95, 102 , 161 N.W.2d 283 (1968). 2015First, we hold that in child sexual assault cases courts may apply the seven factors outlined in Fawcett , and may consider any other relevant factors necessary to determine whether the complaint and information "states an offense to which [the defendant can] plead and prepare a defense." Holesome v. State, 40 Wis. 2d 95, 102 , 161 N.W.2d 283 (1968). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.