11 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tiepelmangreen2 sentences2020In State v. Coffee, 2020 WI 1 , ¶9, 389 Wis. 2d 627 , 937 N.W.2d 579 , “[t]he State told the circuit court that Coffee had a prior arrest 2 In State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66 , 291 Wis. 2d 179 , 717 N.W.2d 1 , the parties agreed “that the issue of harmless error was not developed” sufficiently; therefore, the court did not undertake a harmless error analysis. 2020In State v. Coffee, 2020 WI 1 , ¶9, 389 Wis. 2d 627 , 937 N.W.2d 579 , “[t]he State told the circuit court that Coffee had a prior arrest 2 In State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66 , 291 Wis. 2d 179 , 717 N.W.2d 1 , the parties agreed “that the issue of harmless error was not developed” sufficiently; therefore, the court did not undertake a harmless error analysis. | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Joseph F. Paulusgreen2 sentences2013See United States v. Paulus, 419 F.3d 693, 700 (7th Cir. 2005) (when the district court indicates it would have arrived at the same sentence regardless of which methodology it used to calculate the sentence, any error is harmless). 2013See United States v. Paulus, 419 F.3d 693, 700 (7th Cir. 2005) (when the district court indicates it would have arrived at the same sentence regardless of which methodology it used to calculate the sentence, any error is harmless). 60 In State v. Smith, 207 Wis. 2d 258, 262-63, 280, ¶¶2, 3, 37 , 558 N.W.2d 379 (1997), the State requested a remand to the circuit court for a hearing to determine whether the defendant would have received a different sentence if the prosecutor had kept his plea agreement promise to make no recommendation on the sentence. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2013See United States v. Paulus, 419 F.3d 693, 700 (7th Cir. 2005) (when the district court indicates it would have arrived at the same sentence regardless of which methodology it used to calculate the sentence, any error is harmless). 60 In State v. Smith, 207 Wis. 2d 258, 262-63, 280, ¶¶2, 3, 37 , 558 N.W.2d 379 (1997), the State requested a remand to the circuit court for a hearing to determine whether the defendant would have received a different sentence if the prosecutor had kept his plea agreement promise to make no recommendation on the sentence. 2013See United States v. Paulus, 419 F.3d 693, 700 (7th Cir. 2005) (when the district court indicates it would have arrived at the same sentence regardless of which methodology it used to calculate the sentence, any error is harmless). 60 In State v. Smith, 207 Wis. 2d 258, 262-63, 280, ¶¶2, 3, 37 , 558 N.W.2d 379 (1997), the State requested a remand to the circuit court for a hearing to determine whether the defendant would have received a different sentence if the prosecutor had kept his plea agreement promise to make no recommendation on the sentence. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Amrinegreen2 sentences2026See State v. Amrine, 157 Wis. 2d 778, 783, 785 , 460 N.W.2d 826 (Ct. App. 1990) (stating in the context of an issued reviewed de novo that an appellate court may rely on grounds different from those relied on by the circuit court). 2026See State v. Amrine, 157 Wis. 2d 778, 783, 785 , 460 N.W.2d 826 (Ct. App. 1990) (stating in the context of an issued reviewed de novo that an appellate court may rely on grounds different from those relied on by the circuit court). | 1 | 1 |
Industrial Risk Insurers & Quad Graphics, Inc. v. American Engineering Testing, Inc.green2 sentences2025See Industrial Risk Insurers v. American Eng’g Testing, Inc., 2009 WI App 62, ¶25 , 318 Wis. 2d 148 , 769 N.W.2d 82 (“Arguments unsupported by legal authority will not be considered, and we will not abandon our neutrality to develop arguments.” (citations omitted)). 8 No. 2024AP440-CR error analysis in Koopmans means he is entitled to relief upon proving that his statutory right was violated.9 ¶17 We reject Aiden’s argument that our supreme court’s silence in Koopmans on the issue of harmless error means that he is automatically entitled to relief. 2025See Industrial Risk Insurers v. American Eng’g Testing, Inc., 2009 WI App 62, ¶25 , 318 Wis. 2d 148 , 769 N.W.2d 82 (“Arguments unsupported by legal authority will not be considered, and we will not abandon our neutrality to develop arguments.” (citations omitted)). 8 No. 2024AP440-CR error analysis in Koopmans means he is entitled to relief upon proving that his statutory right was violated.9 ¶17 We reject Aiden’s argument that our supreme court’s silence in Koopmans on the issue of harmless error means that he is automatically entitled to relief. | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2007NOTES [1] State v. Mayo, 292 Wis.2d 485 , 713 N.W.2d 191 (2006). [2] All further references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted. [3] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] During closing argument, the prosecutor stated, "My opinion would be that this was a crime of opportunity." [5] Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:3.4(e)(2004) states, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall not "assert a personal knowledge of facts in issue . . . or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, . . . or the guilt or innocenc 2007During closing argument, the prosecutor stated, "My opinion would be that this was a crime of opportunity." Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:3.4(e)(2004) states, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall not "assert a personal knowledge of facts in issue ... or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, ... or the guilt or innocence of an accused...." Recently, in Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. _ (2007), the United States Supreme Court revisited the issue of harmless error, holding that in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings, a federal court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Lanegreen2 sentences2006While not explicitly addressing the issue of harmless error, the Court stated that "the real question here is ... whether the sentence in the 1953 federal case might have been different if the sentencing judge had known that at least two of the respondent's previous convictions had been unconstitutionally obtained." Id. (footnote omitted). ¶ 13 The actual reliance standard was subsequently followed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Welch v. Lane, 738 F.2d 863 (7th Cir.1984). 2006The actual reliance standard was subsequently followed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Welch v. Lane, 738 F.2d 863 (7th Cir. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Evelyn C. R. v. Tykila S.
green
2 sentences2001I wrote a concurrence on the issue of harmless error in In re the Termination of Parental Rights to Jay ton S.: Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S., 2001 WI 110, ¶¶ 37-42 , 246 Wis. 2d 1 , 629 N.W.2d 768 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring). 2001I wrote a concurrence on the issue of harmless error in In re the Termination of Parental Rights to Jay ton S.: Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S., 2001 WI 110, ¶¶ 37-42 , 246 Wis. 2d 1 , 629 N.W.2d 768 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring). | 4 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Donavinn D. Coffee
green
1 sentence2020In State v. Coffee, 2020 WI 1 , ¶9, 389 Wis. 2d 627 , 937 N.W.2d 579 , “[t]he State told the circuit court that Coffee had a prior arrest 2 In State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66 , 291 Wis. 2d 179 , 717 N.W.2d 1 , the parties agreed “that the issue of harmless error was not developed” sufficiently; therefore, the court did not undertake a harmless error analysis. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Fry v. Pliler
green
1 sentence2007NOTES [1] State v. Mayo, 292 Wis.2d 485 , 713 N.W.2d 191 (2006). [2] All further references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted. [3] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] During closing argument, the prosecutor stated, "My opinion would be that this was a crime of opportunity." [5] Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:3.4(e)(2004) states, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall not "assert a personal knowledge of facts in issue . . . or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, . . . or the guilt or innocenc | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2007NOTES [1] State v. Mayo, 292 Wis.2d 485 , 713 N.W.2d 191 (2006). [2] All further references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted. [3] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] During closing argument, the prosecutor stated, "My opinion would be that this was a crime of opportunity." [5] Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:3.4(e)(2004) states, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall not "assert a personal knowledge of facts in issue . . . or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, . . . or the guilt or innocenc 2007NOTES [1] State v. Mayo, 292 Wis.2d 485 , 713 N.W.2d 191 (2006). [2] All further references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted. [3] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] During closing argument, the prosecutor stated, "My opinion would be that this was a crime of opportunity." [5] Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:3.4(e)(2004) states, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall not "assert a personal knowledge of facts in issue . . . or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, . . . or the guilt or innocenc | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Brecht
green
2 sentences2007During closing argument, the prosecutor stated, "My opinion would be that this was a crime of opportunity." Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:3.4(e)(2004) states, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall not "assert a personal knowledge of facts in issue ... or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, ... or the guilt or innocence of an accused...." Recently, in Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. _ (2007), the United States Supreme Court revisited the issue of harmless error, holding that in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings, a federal court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error 2007During closing argument, the prosecutor stated, "My opinion would be that this was a crime of opportunity." Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:3.4(e)(2004) states, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall not "assert a personal knowledge of facts in issue ... or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, ... or the guilt or innocence of an accused...." Recently, in Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. _ (2007), the United States Supreme Court revisited the issue of harmless error, holding that in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings, a federal court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Berger v. New York
green
1 sentence2007NOTES [1] State v. Mayo, 292 Wis.2d 485 , 713 N.W.2d 191 (2006). [2] All further references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted. [3] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] During closing argument, the prosecutor stated, "My opinion would be that this was a crime of opportunity." [5] Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:3.4(e)(2004) states, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall not "assert a personal knowledge of facts in issue . . . or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, . . . or the guilt or innocenc | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Seymour v. United States
green
2 sentences2007NOTES [1] State v. Mayo, 292 Wis.2d 485 , 713 N.W.2d 191 (2006). [2] All further references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted. [3] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] During closing argument, the prosecutor stated, "My opinion would be that this was a crime of opportunity." [5] Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:3.4(e)(2004) states, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall not "assert a personal knowledge of facts in issue . . . or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, . . . or the guilt or innocenc 2007During closing argument, the prosecutor stated, "My opinion would be that this was a crime of opportunity." Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:3.4(e)(2004) states, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall not "assert a personal knowledge of facts in issue ... or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, ... or the guilt or innocence of an accused...." Recently, in Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. _ (2007), the United States Supreme Court revisited the issue of harmless error, holding that in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings, a federal court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Tucker
green
2 sentences2006While not explicitly addressing the issue of harmless error, the Court stated that "the real question here is ... whether the sentence in the 1953 federal case might have been different if the sentencing judge had known that at least two of the respondent's previous convictions had been unconstitutionally obtained." Id. (footnote omitted). ¶ 13 The actual reliance standard was subsequently followed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Welch v. Lane, 738 F.2d 863 (7th Cir.1984). 2006While not explicitly addressing the issue of harmless error, the Court stated that "the real question here is . . . whether the sentence in the 1953 federal case might have been different if the sentencing judge had known that at least two of the respondent's previous convictions had been unconstitutionally obtained." Id. (footnote omitted). ¶ 13. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.