fair and impartial hearing (Wisconsin) · Go Syfert
← Wisconsin issues

fair and impartial hearing in Wisconsin

11 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1940–2023 4 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Marris v. City of Cedarburggreen
wis · 1993 · cited in 4 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1998–2023
2 sentences

2022Id. at 23, 27-29 . ¶39 Marris alleged that the board’s decision was unlawful because she was deprived of a fair and impartial hearing due to the chairperson’s participation.

2022See Marris, 176 Wis. 2d at 24 . ¶31 Turning to Family Dollar’s other due process claim—that it did not receive a fair and impartial hearing—we find the Marris case particularly instructive.

44
Hartland Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. City of Delafieldgreen
wisctapp · 2020 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Hartland Sportsmen’s Club, 393 Wis. 2d 496, ¶14 (alteration in original; citations omitted). ¶21 As mentioned, the circuit court determined that by the actions of Kolb and Roedl, Sojenhomer’s right to a fair and impartial hearing had been 10 Wisconsin courts changed the terminology used in reviewing a circuit court’s discretionary act from “abuse of discretion” to “erroneous exercise of discretion” in 1992.

11
Thorp v. Town of Lebanongreen
wis · 2000 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010Thorp, 235 Wis. 2d 610, ¶¶ 20-21, 55 .

11
Goldberg v. Kellygreen
scotus · 1970 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970). ¶ 52.

2000See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970). [12] ¶ 52.

11
Jones v. Dane Countygreen
wisctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
2 sentences

1999Jones v. Dane County, 195 Wis. 2d 892, 914 , 537 N.W.2d 74, 80 (Ct. App. 1995).

1999Jones v. Dane County, 195 Wis. 2d 892, 914 , 537 N.W.2d 74, 80 (Ct. App. 1995).

11
Gilchrist v. Bierringgreen
iowa · 1944 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1958–1958
2 sentences

1958Gilchrist v. Bierring (1944), 234 Iowa, 899, 914, 915 , 14 N. W. (2d) 724 , 732: “Where the state confers a license to engage in a profession, trade, or occupation not inherently inimical to the public welfare, such license becomes a valuable personal right which cannot be denied or abridged in any manner except after due notice and a fair and impartial hearing before an unbiased tribunal. . . .

1958Gilchrist v. Bierring (1944), 234 Iowa, 899, 914, 915 , 14 N. W. (2d) 724 , 732: “Where the state confers a license to engage in a profession, trade, or occupation not inherently inimical to the public welfare, such license becomes a valuable personal right which cannot be denied or abridged in any manner except after due notice and a fair and impartial hearing before an unbiased tribunal. . . .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
In RE MARRIAGE OF COOK v. Cook green
wis · 1997
2 sentences

2014As the circuit court itself observed, "the courts are very, very concerned that an accused deputy would be able to receive a fair and impartial hearing." Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189 , 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997), dictates that our "two bites of the apple" concerns must take a back seat to the Eau Claire Cnty. court's ultimate interpretation of the appeal language of Wis. Stat. § 59.52 (8)(c), which, for all practical purposes, reads the same as the appeal language in § 59.26(8)(b)6.

2014As the circuit court itself observed, "the courts are very, very concerned that an accused deputy would be able to receive a fair and impartial hearing." Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189 , 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997), dictates that our "two bites of the apple" concerns must take a back seat to the Eau Claire Cnty. court's ultimate interpretation of the appeal language of Wis. Stat. § 59.52 (8)(c), which, for all practical purposes, reads the same as the appeal language in § 59.26(8)(b)6.

12014–2014
State Ex Rel. Watts v. Combined Community Services Board of Milwaukee County green
wis · 1985
2 sentences

2000Watts v. Combined Community Serv., 122 Wis. 2d 65 , 82 n.8, 362 N.W.2d 104 (1985) (suggesting that the middle level of scrutiny could be applied to a classification based on mental illness). [13] The Thorps alleged that the County Board violated their right to equal protection by not conducting a fair and impartial hearing.

2000Watts v. Combined Community Serv., 122 Wis. 2d 65 , 82 n.8, 362 N.W.2d 104 (1985) (suggesting that the middle level of scrutiny could be applied to a classification based on mental illness). [13] The Thorps alleged that the County Board violated their right to equal protection by not conducting a fair and impartial hearing.

12000–2000
Suring State Bank v. Giese green
wis · 1933
2 sentences

1940When the court first announced from the bench that it would not strain the conscience of the court to find that the fair value of the mortgaged premises was $4,800, and at first so found, upon being advised that the amount due might be more than $4,800, the court then found that the fair value was “the full amount now due under the mortgage including costs, expenses, taxes and attorney fees, whatever that amount is.” Every litigant is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing on both the facts and the law in all matters presented to the court, regardless of its personal convictions. *186 It wou

1940When the court first announced from the bench that it would not strain the conscience of the court to find that the fair value of the mortgaged premises was $4,800, and at first so found, upon being advised that the amount due might be more than $4,800, the court then found that the fair value was “the full amount now due under the mortgage including costs, expenses, taxes and attorney fees, whatever that amount is.” Every litigant is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing on both the facts and the law in all matters presented to the court, regardless of its personal convictions. *186 It wou

11940–1940
Brinckley v. Sager neutral
wis · 1939
2 sentences

1940When the court first announced from the bench that it would not strain the conscience of the court to find that the fair value of the mortgaged premises was $4,800, and at first so found, upon being advised that the amount due might be more than $4,800, the court then found that the fair value was “the full amount now due under the mortgage including costs, expenses, taxes and attorney fees, whatever that amount is.” Every litigant is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing on both the facts and the law in all matters presented to the court, regardless of its personal convictions. *186 It wou

1940When the court first announced from the bench that it would not strain the conscience of the court to find that the fair value of the mortgaged premises was $4,800, and at first so found, upon being advised that the amount due might be more than $4,800, the court then found that the fair value was “the full amount now due under the mortgage including costs, expenses, taxes and attorney fees, whatever that amount is.” Every litigant is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing on both the facts and the law in all matters presented to the court, regardless of its personal convictions. *186 It wou

11940–1940

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 42u.s.c.1983 (4) WI § Wis. Stat. § 62.23 (4) WI § Wis. Stat. § 68.13 (4) WI § Wis. Stat. § 808.10 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 95 (1914–2020) IL 83 (1942–2026) CA 41 (1933–2024) FL 28 (1989–2023) AZ 19 (1922–2022) PA 18 (1952–2025) OH 18 (1953–2025) NJ 17 (1949–2024) NM 16 (1982–2020) TX 15 (1885–2025) OK 14 (1926–2023) SD 13 (1980–2018) WI 11 (1940–2023) WA 9 (1912–2024) MO 9 (1942–2007) RI 9 (1963–2021) GA 9 (1935–2004) CT 7 (1970–2002) NC 7 (1986–2025) MS 7 (1977–2012) AL 6 (1937–1987) ND 6 (1988–2019) SC 6 (1961–2015) IN 6 (1972–2003) MD 6 (1973–2001) KS 6 (1973–2015) LA 6 (1999–2021) ID 6 (1923–1993) MI 6 (1968–2003) VT 5 (1988–2025) MA 5 (1918–2003) CO 5 (1953–1987) WY 4 (1976–2022) MN 4 (1947–2005) AK 4 (1983–2024) HI 4 (1980–2011) IA 4 (1944–2012) NH 3 (1995–2000) NE 3 (1930–1974) MT 3 (1956–1980) ME 3 (1970–2026) OR 3 (1977–1992) TN 2 (1969–2022) NV 2 (1970–1986) AR 2 (2003–2012) DE 2 (2023–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check