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.
11 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2023 1 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. Allesgreen2 sentences1994See State v. Alles, 106 Wis. 2d 368, 390 , 316 N.W.2d 378, 389 (1982) (no need for cross-appeal "when all that is sought is the raising of an error which, if corrected, would sustain the judgment"). 1994See State v. Alles, 106 Wis. 2d 368, 390 , 316 N.W.2d 378, 389 (1982) (no need for cross-appeal "when all that is sought is the raising of an error which, if corrected, would sustain the judgment"). | 4 | 6 |
Auric v. Continental Casualty Co.green2 sentences1985A *408 respondent may raise an issue in his brief without filing a cross-appeal “when all that is sought is the raising of an error which, if corrected, would sustain the judgment . . . .” Auric v. Continental Casualty Co., 111 Wis. 2d 507, 516 , 331 N.W.2d 325, 330 (1983), quoting State v. Alles, 106 Wis. 2d 368, 390 , 316 N.W.2d 378, 388 (1982). 1985A *408 respondent may raise an issue in his brief without filing a cross-appeal “when all that is sought is the raising of an error which, if corrected, would sustain the judgment . . . .” Auric v. Continental Casualty Co., 111 Wis. 2d 507, 516 , 331 N.W.2d 325, 330 (1983), quoting State v. Alles, 106 Wis. 2d 368, 390 , 316 N.W.2d 378, 388 (1982). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Huffgreen2 sentences2010See State v. Huff, 123 Wis. 2d 397, 407-08 , 367 N.W.2d 226 (Ct. App. 1985) ("A respondent may raise an issue in his brief without filing a cross-appeal 'when all that is sought is the raising of an error which, if corrected, would sustain the judgment,'" but if instead the respondent "seeks modification of an order entered in a proceeding from which the appellant appealed, the respondent must file a notice of cross-appeal.") (citation omitted). 2010See State v. Huff, 123 Wis. 2d 397, 407-08 , 367 N.W.2d 226 (Ct. App. 1985) ("A respondent may raise an issue in his brief without filing a cross-appeal 'when all that is sought is the raising of an error which, if corrected, would sustain the judgment,'" but if instead the respondent "seeks modification of an order entered in a proceeding from which the appellant appealed, the respondent must file a notice of cross-appeal.") (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hoffmann v. Wisconsin Valley Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1972In view of the evidence and the test for the raising of a presumption of undue influence, as given in Estate of Steffke, supra, and Estate of Komarr, supra, the presumption of undue influence does not arise in this case unless the testator has relied on the advice of the confidant in relation to the subject of the will. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Rosick v. Morey
neutral
2 sentences1965All issues of fact and law raised by an objection specified in sub. (2) [the court’s jurisdiction] shall be tried to the court without a jury in advance of any issue going to the merits of the case. . . ,” Estate of Morey (1956), 272 Wis. 79 , 74 N. W. (2d) 823 ; Will of Heymann (1926), 190 Wis. 97 , 208 N. W. 913 . 1965All issues of fact and law raised by an objection specified in sub. (2) [the court’s jurisdiction] shall be tried to the court without a jury in advance of any issue going to the merits of the case. . . ,” Estate of Morey (1956), 272 Wis. 79 , 74 N. W. (2d) 823 ; Will of Heymann (1926), 190 Wis. 97 , 208 N. W. 913 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Heymann v. Luchsinger
neutral
2 sentences1965All issues of fact and law raised by an objection specified in sub. (2) [the court’s jurisdiction] shall be tried to the court without a jury in advance of any issue going to the merits of the case. . . ,” Estate of Morey (1956), 272 Wis. 79 , 74 N. W. (2d) 823 ; Will of Heymann (1926), 190 Wis. 97 , 208 N. W. 913 . 1965All issues of fact and law raised by an objection specified in sub. (2) [the court’s jurisdiction] shall be tried to the court without a jury in advance of any issue going to the merits of the case. . . ,” Estate of Morey (1956), 272 Wis. 79 , 74 N. W. (2d) 823 ; Will of Heymann (1926), 190 Wis. 97 , 208 N. W. 913 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.