11 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tumey v. Ohiogreen2 sentences1978Nor was Washington's refusal made in a manner which, though not constituting an attack, might still nettle a judge to the extent that he or she could not "hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused. . . ." Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927), quoted in Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501 (1973); see also Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, supra . [12] The generally recognized rule is that where the alleged civil contempt consists of disobedience to a court order or process, the judge need not be disqualified from sitting on a contempt hearing. [23] The United States Supr 1978Nor was Washington’s refusal made in a manner which, though not constituting an attack, might still nettle a judge to the extent that he or she could not “hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused . . . .” Turney v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927), quoted in Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501 (1973); see also Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, supra. The generally recognized rule is that where the alleged civil contempt consists of disobedience to a court order or process, the judge need not be disqualified from sitting on a contempt hearing. 23 The United States Supreme Co | 2 | 2 |
Mayberry v. Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences1978Nor was Washington's refusal made in a manner which, though not constituting an attack, might still nettle a judge to the extent that he or she could not "hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused. . . ." Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927), quoted in Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501 (1973); see also Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, supra . [12] The generally recognized rule is that where the alleged civil contempt consists of disobedience to a court order or process, the judge need not be disqualified from sitting on a contempt hearing. [23] The United States Supr 1978Nor was Washington’s refusal made in a manner which, though not constituting an attack, might still nettle a judge to the extent that he or she could not “hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused . . . .” Turney v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927), quoted in Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501 (1973); see also Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, supra. The generally recognized rule is that where the alleged civil contempt consists of disobedience to a court order or process, the judge need not be disqualified from sitting on a contempt hearing. 23 The United States Supreme Co | 2 | 2 |
Taylor v. Hayesgreen2 sentences1978Nor was Washington's refusal made in a manner which, though not constituting an attack, might still nettle a judge to the extent that he or she could not "hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused. . . ." Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927), quoted in Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501 (1973); see also Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, supra . [12] The generally recognized rule is that where the alleged civil contempt consists of disobedience to a court order or process, the judge need not be disqualified from sitting on a contempt hearing. [23] The United States Supr 1978Nor was Washington’s refusal made in a manner which, though not constituting an attack, might still nettle a judge to the extent that he or she could not “hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused . . . .” Turney v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927), quoted in Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501 (1973); see also Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, supra. The generally recognized rule is that where the alleged civil contempt consists of disobedience to a court order or process, the judge need not be disqualified from sitting on a contempt hearing. 23 The United States Supreme Co | 2 | 2 |
Industrial Risk Insurers & Quad Graphics, Inc. v. American Engineering Testing, Inc.green2 sentences2024Again, it is well-established law that “[a]rguments not rebutted on appeal are deemed conceded.” Shadley v. Lloyds of London, 2009 WI App 165, ¶26 , 322 Wis. 2d 189 , 776 N.W.2d 838 ; see also Industrial Risk Insurers v. American Eng’g Testing, Inc., 2009 WI App 62, ¶25 , 318 Wis. 2d 148 , 769 N.W.2d 82 (“[W]e will not abandon our neutrality to develop arguments” for a party.). ¶29 In conclusion, because both Ricardo and the State have conceded that Valadez was constructively denied the assistance of counsel at the contempt hearing and thus that this matter must be remanded for a new contempt 2024Again, it is well-established law that “[a]rguments not rebutted on appeal are deemed conceded.” Shadley v. Lloyds of London, 2009 WI App 165, ¶26 , 322 Wis. 2d 189 , 776 N.W.2d 838 ; see also Industrial Risk Insurers v. American Eng’g Testing, Inc., 2009 WI App 62, ¶25 , 318 Wis. 2d 148 , 769 N.W.2d 82 (“[W]e will not abandon our neutrality to develop arguments” for a party.). ¶29 In conclusion, because both Ricardo and the State have conceded that Valadez was constructively denied the assistance of counsel at the contempt hearing and thus that this matter must be remanded for a new contempt | 1 | 1 |
United Cooperative v. Frontier FS Cooperativegreen2 sentences2020See United Coop. v. Frontier FS Coop., 2007 WI App 197, ¶39 , 304 Wis. 2d 750 , 738 N.W.2d 578 (appellant’s failure to dispute respondent’s arguments in a reply brief may be taken as a concession). ¶7 Aside from Roger’s concession, we are not persuaded that the circuit court erred by allowing the parties to submit additional evidence following the contempt hearing. 2020See United Coop. v. Frontier FS Coop., 2007 WI App 197, ¶39 , 304 Wis. 2d 750 , 738 N.W.2d 578 (appellant’s failure to dispute respondent’s arguments in a reply brief may be taken as a concession). ¶7 Aside from Roger’s concession, we are not persuaded that the circuit court erred by allowing the parties to submit additional evidence following the contempt hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Brownelli v. McCaughtrygreen2 sentences1995Brownelli v. McCaughtry, 182 Wis. 2d 367, 372 , 514 N.W.2d 48,49 (Ct. App. 1994). 1995Brownelli v. McCaughtry, 182 Wis. 2d 367, 372 , 514 N.W.2d 48,49 (Ct. App. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
Clausen v. Clausengreen1 sentence1989Clausen v. Clausen, 84 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Minn. 1957). | 1 | 1 |
Besaw v. Besawgreen2 sentences1980Besaw v. Besaw, 89 Wis.2d 509, 517 , 279 N.W.2d 192, 195 (1979). 1980Besaw v. Besaw, 89 Wis.2d 509, 517 , 279 N.W.2d 192, 195 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Cronic
green
1 sentence2024As to the first basis, Valadez presents a developed, approximately five-page argument based upon the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), as well as relevant Wisconsin published case law. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Cedric Tung
neutral
1 sentence2024State v. Tung, 2023 WI App 33, ¶19 , 408 Wis. 2d 544 , 993 N.W.2d 706 . ¶16 On November 10, 2023, Valadez, by the same assistant state public defender who represented her on the postdisposition motion, filed her eighteen- page brief-in-chief in this appeal, arguing that the circuit court’s contempt order must be reversed and remanded for a new contempt hearing for either of two reasons: She was “constructively denied the assistance of counsel” at the contempt hearing or, alternatively, she was “denied the effective assistance of counsel” at the hearing. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Shadley v. Lloyds of London
green
2 sentences2024Again, it is well-established law that “[a]rguments not rebutted on appeal are deemed conceded.” Shadley v. Lloyds of London, 2009 WI App 165, ¶26 , 322 Wis. 2d 189 , 776 N.W.2d 838 ; see also Industrial Risk Insurers v. American Eng’g Testing, Inc., 2009 WI App 62, ¶25 , 318 Wis. 2d 148 , 769 N.W.2d 82 (“[W]e will not abandon our neutrality to develop arguments” for a party.). ¶29 In conclusion, because both Ricardo and the State have conceded that Valadez was constructively denied the assistance of counsel at the contempt hearing and thus that this matter must be remanded for a new contempt 2024Again, it is well-established law that “[a]rguments not rebutted on appeal are deemed conceded.” Shadley v. Lloyds of London, 2009 WI App 165, ¶26 , 322 Wis. 2d 189 , 776 N.W.2d 838 ; see also Industrial Risk Insurers v. American Eng’g Testing, Inc., 2009 WI App 62, ¶25 , 318 Wis. 2d 148 , 769 N.W.2d 82 (“[W]e will not abandon our neutrality to develop arguments” for a party.). ¶29 In conclusion, because both Ricardo and the State have conceded that Valadez was constructively denied the assistance of counsel at the contempt hearing and thus that this matter must be remanded for a new contempt | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF MONICKEN v. Monicken
green
2 sentences2023“We review a circuit court’s use of its contempt power for [an] erroneous exercise of discretion.” Monicken v. Monicken, 226 Wis. 2d 119, 124 , 593 N.W.2d 509 (Ct. App. 1999). 2023“We review a circuit court’s use of its contempt power for [an] erroneous exercise of discretion.” Monicken v. Monicken, 226 Wis. 2d 119, 124 , 593 N.W.2d 509 (Ct. App. 1999). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Gehr v. City of Sheboygan
green
2 sentences2021STAT. § 66.05(3) would preempt a contempt challenge to a razing based on violation of a bankruptcy court’s 10 No. 2020AP92 of Sheboygan, 81 Wis. 2d 117, 125-28 , 260 N.W.2d 30 (1977) (court considered whether raze order had lapsed and whether the city would be estopped from enforcing the order rather than applying § 66.05(3) to preclude claims). ¶24 Here, the corporation is not challenging the reasonableness of the raze or repair order. 2021STAT. § 66.05(3) would preempt a contempt challenge to a razing based on violation of a bankruptcy court’s 10 No. 2020AP92 of Sheboygan, 81 Wis. 2d 117, 125-28 , 260 N.W.2d 30 (1977) (court considered whether raze order had lapsed and whether the city would be estopped from enforcing the order rather than applying § 66.05(3) to preclude claims). ¶24 Here, the corporation is not challenging the reasonableness of the raze or repair order. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
City of Wisconsin Dells v. Dells Fireworks, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018City of Wisconsin Dells v. Dells Fireworks, Inc. , 197 Wis. 2d 1 , 23, 539 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1995). ¶ 12 At the contempt hearing, the circuit court found Hutchinson's public disclosure of the customer list violated both the confidentiality stipulation and order and its February 27, 2017 order that he not further disclose confidential information. 2018City of Wisconsin Dells v. Dells Fireworks, Inc. , 197 Wis. 2d 1 , 23, 539 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1995). ¶ 12 At the contempt hearing, the circuit court found Hutchinson's public disclosure of the customer list violated both the confidentiality stipulation and order and its February 27, 2017 order that he not further disclose confidential information. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scott
neutral
1 sentence1998Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scott, 132 Wis. 2d 222 , 390 N.W.2d 572 . ¶ 2. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Thomas v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence1998Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scott, 132 Wis. 2d 222 , 390 N.W.2d 572 . ¶ 2. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.