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.
12 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Matter of Estate of Friedligreen2 sentences2023See Hoeft v. Friedli, 164 Wis. 2d 178, 184-85 , 473 N.W.2d 604 (Ct. App. 1991); see also First Nat’l Bank of Appleton v. Nennig, 92 Wis. 2d 518, 536 , 285 N.W.2d 614 (1979) (“Undue influence in the execution of an inter vivos conveyance is proved in the same way that undue influence is proved in the execution of a will.”). 2023“When the objector has established three of the four elements by clear and convincing evidence, only slight evidence of the fourth is required.” Id. ¶31 The two-element test requires an objector to prove: “(1) a confidential or a fiduciary relationship between the [grantor] and the favored beneficiary, and (2) suspicious circumstances surrounding” the transfer of property. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Rabegreen2 sentences1991He explicitly argues in his brief that "the Legislature clearly did not intend cumulative punishment under these two statutes." Second, in State v. Tappa, 127 Wis. 2d 155 , 378 N.W.2d 883 (1985), the supreme court admonished the court of appeals for failing to conduct the second prong of the multiplicity analysis, concluding that it was "erroneous not to apply the two-element test of [State v.] Rabe [, 96 Wis. 2d 48, 63 , 291 N.W.2d 809, 816 (1980)]" to that case. 1991He explicitly argues in his brief that "the Legislature clearly did not intend cumulative punishment under these two statutes." Second, in State v. Tappa, 127 Wis. 2d 155 , 378 N.W.2d 883 (1985), the supreme court admonished the court of appeals for failing to conduct the second prong of the multiplicity analysis, concluding that it was "erroneous not to apply the two-element test of [State v.] Rabe [, 96 Wis. 2d 48, 63 , 291 N.W.2d 809, 816 (1980)]" to that case. | 1 | 2 |
First National Bank of Appleton v. Nenniggreen2 sentences2023See Hoeft v. Friedli, 164 Wis. 2d 178, 184-85 , 473 N.W.2d 604 (Ct. App. 1991); see also First Nat’l Bank of Appleton v. Nennig, 92 Wis. 2d 518, 536 , 285 N.W.2d 614 (1979) (“Undue influence in the execution of an inter vivos conveyance is proved in the same way that undue influence is proved in the execution of a will.”). 2023See Hoeft v. Friedli, 164 Wis. 2d 178, 184-85 , 473 N.W.2d 604 (Ct. App. 1991); see also First Nat’l Bank of Appleton v. Nennig, 92 Wis. 2d 518, 536 , 285 N.W.2d 614 (1979) (“Undue influence in the execution of an inter vivos conveyance is proved in the same way that undue influence is proved in the execution of a will.”). | 1 | 1 |
Mielke v. Nordenggreen2 sentences2020See id. ¶65 Moreover, in response to Gordon, Dennis, and Karl’s argument that the circuit court should have used the two-element test, John and Marlene cite Mielke v. Nordeng, 114 Wis. 2d 20, 27-28 , 337 N.W.2d 462 (Ct. App. 1983), for the proposition that the two-element test “is meant for close, confidential non-family relationships such as those between attorney and client, physician and patient, or priest and parishioner.” John and Marlene therefore argue that the two-element test is inapplicable in this case, which involves parent-child relationships. 2020See id. ¶65 Moreover, in response to Gordon, Dennis, and Karl’s argument that the circuit court should have used the two-element test, John and Marlene cite Mielke v. Nordeng, 114 Wis. 2d 20, 27-28 , 337 N.W.2d 462 (Ct. App. 1983), for the proposition that the two-element test “is meant for close, confidential non-family relationships such as those between attorney and client, physician and patient, or priest and parishioner.” John and Marlene therefore argue that the two-element test is inapplicable in this case, which involves parent-child relationships. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Kamesargreen1 sentence2020Two-element Test ¶28 As to the two-element test, Trudie challenges only the circuit court’s finding as to the element of the existence of suspicious circumstances. 12 No. 2019AP1065 Existence of Suspicious Circumstances ¶29 The existence of suspicious circumstances may be proven through evidence regarding “the activity of the beneficiary in procuring the drafting and execution of the will, or a sudden and unexplained change in the attitude of the testator, or some other persuasive circumstance.” Lee, 81 Wis. 2d at 166 (quoted source omitted). ¶30 The circuit court found that “[s]imply calling | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pettitgreen1 sentence2020See id. ¶65 Moreover, in response to Gordon, Dennis, and Karl’s argument that the circuit court should have used the two-element test, John and Marlene cite Mielke v. Nordeng, 114 Wis. 2d 20, 27-28 , 337 N.W.2d 462 (Ct. App. 1983), for the proposition that the two-element test “is meant for close, confidential non-family relationships such as those between attorney and client, physician and patient, or priest and parishioner.” John and Marlene therefore argue that the two-element test is inapplicable in this case, which involves parent-child relationships. | 1 | 1 |
Lyell Theatre Corporation v. Loews Corporationgreen1 sentence2006"Prejudice to defendants resulting from unreasonable delay may be presumed ... but in cases where delay is more moderate or excusable, the need to show actual prejudice is proportionally greater...." Id. at 491 n. 5, 360 N.W.2d 537 (citing Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 1982)). ¶ 24 The next time the concept of actual prejudice appears is in the two-element test used in McMillian v. Dickey, where laches was raised to a petition for habeas corpus. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Glaeske v. Shaw
green
2 sentences2023When more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the credible evidence, the reviewing court must accept the inference drawn by the trier of fact.” Noll, 115 Wis. 2d at 643 -44 (quoting Cogswell v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 87 Wis. 2d 243, 249-50 , 274 N.W.2d 647 (1979)).7 ¶31 There are two methods by which undue influence may be shown in Wisconsin, a four-element test and a two-element test.8 Glaeske v. Shaw, 2003 WI App 71 , ¶27 & n.12, 261 Wis. 2d 549 , 661 N.W.2d 420 . 2023When more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the credible evidence, the reviewing court must accept the inference drawn by the trier of fact.” Noll, 115 Wis. 2d at 643 -44 (quoting Cogswell v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 87 Wis. 2d 243, 249-50 , 274 N.W.2d 647 (1979)).7 ¶31 There are two methods by which undue influence may be shown in Wisconsin, a four-element test and a two-element test.8 Glaeske v. Shaw, 2003 WI App 71 , ¶27 & n.12, 261 Wis. 2d 549 , 661 N.W.2d 420 . | 2 | 2005–2023 |
State Ex Rel. Coleman v. McCaughtry
green
2 sentences2019Coleman v. McCaughtry , 2006 WI 49 , ¶29, 290 Wis. 2d 352 , 714 N.W.2d 900 (referencing Sawyer v. Midelfort , 227 Wis. 2d 124 , 595 N.W.2d 423 (1999) ; State v. Prihoda , 2000 WI 123 , 239 Wis. 2d 244 , 618 N.W.2d 857 ; State ex rel. 2019Coleman v. McCaughtry , 2006 WI 49 , ¶29, 290 Wis. 2d 352 , 714 N.W.2d 900 (referencing Sawyer v. Midelfort , 227 Wis. 2d 124 , 595 N.W.2d 423 (1999) ; State v. Prihoda , 2000 WI 123 , 239 Wis. 2d 244 , 618 N.W.2d 857 ; State ex rel. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Sawyer v. Midelfort
green
2 sentences2019Coleman v. McCaughtry , 2006 WI 49 , ¶29, 290 Wis. 2d 352 , 714 N.W.2d 900 (referencing Sawyer v. Midelfort , 227 Wis. 2d 124 , 595 N.W.2d 423 (1999) ; State v. Prihoda , 2000 WI 123 , 239 Wis. 2d 244 , 618 N.W.2d 857 ; State ex rel. 2019Coleman v. McCaughtry , 2006 WI 49 , ¶29, 290 Wis. 2d 352 , 714 N.W.2d 900 (referencing Sawyer v. Midelfort , 227 Wis. 2d 124 , 595 N.W.2d 423 (1999) ; State v. Prihoda , 2000 WI 123 , 239 Wis. 2d 244 , 618 N.W.2d 857 ; State ex rel. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Prihoda
green
2 sentences2019Coleman v. McCaughtry , 2006 WI 49 , ¶29, 290 Wis. 2d 352 , 714 N.W.2d 900 (referencing Sawyer v. Midelfort , 227 Wis. 2d 124 , 595 N.W.2d 423 (1999) ; State v. Prihoda , 2000 WI 123 , 239 Wis. 2d 244 , 618 N.W.2d 857 ; State ex rel. 2019Coleman v. McCaughtry , 2006 WI 49 , ¶29, 290 Wis. 2d 352 , 714 N.W.2d 900 (referencing Sawyer v. Midelfort , 227 Wis. 2d 124 , 595 N.W.2d 423 (1999) ; State v. Prihoda , 2000 WI 123 , 239 Wis. 2d 244 , 618 N.W.2d 857 ; State ex rel. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Cogswell v. Robertshaw Controls Co.
green
2 sentences2023When more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the credible evidence, the reviewing court must accept the inference drawn by the trier of fact.” Noll, 115 Wis. 2d at 643 -44 (quoting Cogswell v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 87 Wis. 2d 243, 249-50 , 274 N.W.2d 647 (1979)).7 ¶31 There are two methods by which undue influence may be shown in Wisconsin, a four-element test and a two-element test.8 Glaeske v. Shaw, 2003 WI App 71 , ¶27 & n.12, 261 Wis. 2d 549 , 661 N.W.2d 420 . 2023When more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the credible evidence, the reviewing court must accept the inference drawn by the trier of fact.” Noll, 115 Wis. 2d at 643 -44 (quoting Cogswell v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 87 Wis. 2d 243, 249-50 , 274 N.W.2d 647 (1979)).7 ¶31 There are two methods by which undue influence may be shown in Wisconsin, a four-element test and a two-element test.8 Glaeske v. Shaw, 2003 WI App 71 , ¶27 & n.12, 261 Wis. 2d 549 , 661 N.W.2d 420 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Estate of Glass
green
2 sentences2023Here the circuit court and the parties have most extensively addressed the four-element test, which requires proof of the following by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence: (1) susceptibility—a person who is susceptible to being unduly influenced by the alleged wrongdoer; (2) opportunity—the opportunity by the alleged wrongdoer to exercise undue influence on the susceptible person; (3) disposition—a disposition by the alleged wrongdoer to use such influence; and (4) coveted result—the 7 The siblings accurately quote the following statement of our supreme court in this context: “Reversa 2023Here the circuit court and the parties have most extensively addressed the four-element test, which requires proof of the following by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence: (1) susceptibility—a person who is susceptible to being unduly influenced by the alleged wrongdoer; (2) opportunity—the opportunity by the alleged wrongdoer to exercise undue influence on the susceptible person; (3) disposition—a disposition by the alleged wrongdoer to use such influence; and (4) coveted result—the 7 The siblings accurately quote the following statement of our supreme court in this context: “Reversa | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Noll v. Dimiceli's, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023When more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the credible evidence, the reviewing court must accept the inference drawn by the trier of fact.” Noll, 115 Wis. 2d at 643 -44 (quoting Cogswell v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 87 Wis. 2d 243, 249-50 , 274 N.W.2d 647 (1979)).7 ¶31 There are two methods by which undue influence may be shown in Wisconsin, a four-element test and a two-element test.8 Glaeske v. Shaw, 2003 WI App 71 , ¶27 & n.12, 261 Wis. 2d 549 , 661 N.W.2d 420 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Peppertree Resort Villas, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020In addition, “[w]hen the circuit court acts as the finder of fact, it is the ultimate arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to each witness’s testimony.” State v. Peppertree Resort Villas, Inc., 2002 WI App 207, ¶19 , 257 Wis. 2d 421 , 651 N.W.2d 345 . ¶52 Wisconsin courts recognize two distinct methods by which a litigant may establish undue influence: a four-element test and a two-element test. 2020In addition, “[w]hen the circuit court acts as the finder of fact, it is the ultimate arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to each witness’s testimony.” State v. Peppertree Resort Villas, Inc., 2002 WI App 207, ¶19 , 257 Wis. 2d 421 , 651 N.W.2d 345 . ¶52 Wisconsin courts recognize two distinct methods by which a litigant may establish undue influence: a four-element test and a two-element test. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bertler v. Employers Insurance of Wausau
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 20-22 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Neylan v. Vorwald
green
2 sentences2006"Prejudice to defendants resulting from unreasonable delay may be presumed ... but in cases where delay is more moderate or excusable, the need to show actual prejudice is proportionally greater...." Id. at 491 n. 5, 360 N.W.2d 537 (citing Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 1982)). ¶ 24 The next time the concept of actual prejudice appears is in the two-element test used in McMillian v. Dickey, where laches was raised to a petition for habeas corpus. 2006"Prejudice to defendants resulting from unreasonable delay may be presumed ... but in cases where delay is more moderate or excusable, the need to show actual prejudice is proportionally greater...." Id. at 491 n. 5, 360 N.W.2d 537 (citing Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 1982)). ¶ 24 The next time the concept of actual prejudice appears is in the two-element test used in McMillian v. Dickey, where laches was raised to a petition for habeas corpus. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State Ex Rel. Smalley v. Morgan
green
2 sentences2006While the analysis of Smalley's delay was prefaced with an explanation of laches principles, [7] the Smalley decision actually rests on the application of habeas principles. [8] For example, Smalley concluded by explaining that Smalley's claim was precluded by the insufficiency of the habeas petition itself. [9] The foundation for the decision in Smalley becomes readily apparent when the decision places the burden of proof for timeliness of the petition on Smalley , which is in accord with reviewing timeliness in regard to a habeas petition. [10] Smalley, 211 Wis.2d at 802 n. 7, 565 N.W.2d 805 2006While the analysis of Smalley's delay was prefaced with an explanation of laches principles, [7] the Smalley decision actually rests on the application of habeas principles. [8] For example, Smalley concluded by explaining that Smalley's claim was precluded by the insufficiency of the habeas petition itself. [9] The foundation for the decision in Smalley becomes readily apparent when the decision places the burden of proof for timeliness of the petition on Smalley , which is in accord with reviewing timeliness in regard to a habeas petition. [10] Smalley, 211 Wis.2d at 802 n. 7, 565 N.W.2d 805 | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Jerry Dwayne Baxter v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Dept. Of Corrections
green
2 sentences2006Citing Baxter v. Estelle, 614 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir.1980), the court of appeals said, "[T]he state must demonstrate that it must suffer actual prejudice from the delay in its ability to respond to the grounds upon which habeas is sought." McMillian, 132 Wis.2d at 281 n. 14, 392 N.W.2d 453 (citing Baxter, 614 F.2d at 1032 -33 & n. 2). 2006Baxter, 614 F.2d at 1032-33 . *907 ¶ 25 In Smalley, again in the context of a habeas petition, the court of appeals employed a two-element test that requires that "actual prejudice" be shown by the state when it raises laches to a habeas petition. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State Ex Rel. McMillian v. Dickey
green
2 sentences2006Citing Baxter v. Estelle, 614 P.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1980), the court of appeals said, "[T]he state must demonstrate that it must suffer actual prejudice from the delay in its ability to respond to the grounds upon which habeas is sought." McMillian, 132 Wis. 2d at 281 n.14 (citing Baxter, 614 F.2d at 1032-33 & n.2). 2006Smalley, 211 Wis. 2d at 800 (citing McMillian, 132 Wis. 2d at 281 n.14). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Evans
green
2 sentences2006Evans, 273 Wis.2d 192, ¶ 49 , 682 N.W.2d 784 . ¶ 27 However, in Prihoda , which addressed Prihoda's motion to vacate a clerical correction in sentencing, Prihoda raised laches to the clerical correction. 2006Evans, 273 Wis. 2d 192, ¶ 49 . ¶ 27. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Wurtz v. Fleischman
green
2 sentences2006Wurtz v. Fleischman, 97 Wis.2d 100 , 107 n. 3, 293 N.W.2d 155 (1980). [3] All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted. [4] There have been occasions when this two-element test has a preface to the first element, that the claimant has a cause of action against the defendant. 2006Wurtz v. Fleischman, 97 Wis.2d 100 , 107 n. 3, 293 N.W.2d 155 (1980). [3] All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted. [4] There have been occasions when this two-element test has a preface to the first element, that the claimant has a cause of action against the defendant. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Tappa
green
2 sentences1991He explicitly argues in his brief that "the Legislature clearly did not intend cumulative punishment under these two statutes." Second, in State v. Tappa, 127 Wis. 2d 155 , 378 N.W.2d 883 (1985), the supreme court admonished the court of appeals for failing to conduct the second prong of the multiplicity analysis, concluding that it was "erroneous not to apply the two-element test of [State v.] Rabe [, 96 Wis. 2d 48, 63 , 291 N.W.2d 809, 816 (1980)]" to that case. 1991He explicitly argues in his brief that "the Legislature clearly did not intend cumulative punishment under these two statutes." Second, in State v. Tappa, 127 Wis. 2d 155 , 378 N.W.2d 883 (1985), the supreme court admonished the court of appeals for failing to conduct the second prong of the multiplicity analysis, concluding that it was "erroneous not to apply the two-element test of [State v.] Rabe [, 96 Wis. 2d 48, 63 , 291 N.W.2d 809, 816 (1980)]" to that case. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.