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 1985–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ottman v. Town of Primrosegreen2 sentences2025See Ottman v Town of Primrose, 2011 WI 18, ¶51 , 332 Wis. 2d 3 , 796 N.W.2d 411 . 2025See Ottman v Town of Primrose, 2011 WI 18, ¶51 , 332 Wis. 2d 3 , 796 N.W.2d 411 . | 2 | 2 |
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 |
State Ex Rel. Enterprise Realty Co. v. Swiderskigreen2 sentences1988Enterprise Realty Co. v. Swiderski, 269 Wis. 642, 645 , 70 N.W.2d 34, 35 (1955). > HH VALUATION OF THE CRANBERRY BEDS The taxpayers contend that the fair market value of their cranberry beds was established by the comparable sales and that the assessor’s reliance on factors outside those sales was contrary to sec. 70.32(1), Stats. 1988Enterprise Realty Co. v. Swiderski, 269 Wis. 642, 645 , 70 N.W.2d 34, 35 (1955). > HH VALUATION OF THE CRANBERRY BEDS The taxpayers contend that the fair market value of their cranberry beds was established by the comparable sales and that the assessor’s reliance on factors outside those sales was contrary to sec. 70.32(1), Stats. | 1 | 1 |
Charlie Benson Bowen v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondentgreen1 sentence1986For a more recent example of this approach, see Bowen v. Kemp, 769 F.2d 672, 677 (11th Cir.) (1985), in which the federal court of appeals ruled that the defendant's reliance on the defense of insanity conceded the intent element of the charged crime, making an unconstitutional presumption in the instruction on intent harmless error. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
WTMJ, Inc. v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2022E.g., WTMJ, Inc. v. Sullivan, 204 Wis. 2d 452, 458 , 555 N.W.2d 140 (Ct. App. 1996) (quoting State ex rel. 2022E.g., WTMJ, Inc. v. Sullivan, 204 Wis. 2d 452, 458 , 555 N.W.2d 140 (Ct. App. 1996) (quoting State ex rel. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Eric L. Loomis
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha
green
1 sentence2023The test stated in the opinion of this court in Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha, 2020 WI App 61 , 394 Wis. 2d 387 , 950 N.W.2d 831 , is summarized in the majority opinion: [This] court stated that the requesting party is entitled to attorney fees when “it demonstrates a violation of [the public records law]; that is, an unreasonable delay caused by the improper reliance on an exception.” Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
United States v. Tucker
green
1 sentence2006While 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). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2006Whether the court "actually relied" on the incorrect information at sentencing was based upon whether the court gave "explicit attention" or "specific consideration" to it, so that the misinformation "formed part of the basis for the sentence." Id. at 866. ¶ 15 An examination of case law in Wisconsin reveals that, although the actual reliance standard was properly formulated, initially, the court of appeals began to stray from that standard in some cases by requiring the proof of prejudicial, rather than actual reliance. ¶ 16 In Johnson, 158 Wis.2d 458 , 463 N.W.2d 352 , the defendant requeste 2006Whether the court "actually relied" on the incorrect information at sentencing was based upon whether the court gave "explicit attention" or "specific consideration" to it, so that the misinformation "formed part of the basis for the sentence." Id. at 866. ¶ 15 An examination of case law in Wisconsin reveals that, although the actual reliance standard was properly formulated, initially, the court of appeals began to stray from that standard in some cases by requiring the proof of prejudicial, rather than actual reliance. ¶ 16 In Johnson, 158 Wis.2d 458 , 463 N.W.2d 352 , the defendant requeste | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Ramsden v. Farm Credit Services of North Central Wisconsin ACA
green
2 sentences2001Ramsden v. Farm Credit Servs., 223 Wis. 2d 704, 721 , 590 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1998). 2001Ramsden v. Farm Credit Servs., 223 Wis. 2d 704, 721 , 590 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1998). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State Ex Rel. Flowers v. Department of Health & Social Services
green
2 sentences1985Flowers v. H&SS Dept., 81 Wis. 2d 376, 387 , 260 N.W.2d 727 (1978), denominated this reliance as error, because relitigation of an issue is precluded in a second proceeding on an estoppel theory only “ ‘where the matter raised in the second suit is identical in all respects with that decided in the first proceeding and where the controlling facts and applicable legal rules remain unchanged ....’” (Ct. App. slip opinion at page 4.) The court of appeals pointed out that reasonableness of a refusal is not an issue in a refusal hearing — only the question of whether the test was refused “due to a 1985Flowers v. H&SS Dept., 81 Wis. 2d 376, 387 , 260 N.W.2d 727 (1978), denominated this reliance as error, because relitigation of an issue is precluded in a second proceeding on an estoppel theory only “ ‘where the matter raised in the second suit is identical in all respects with that decided in the first proceeding and where the controlling facts and applicable legal rules remain unchanged ....’” (Ct. App. slip opinion at page 4.) The court of appeals pointed out that reasonableness of a refusal is not an issue in a refusal hearing — only the question of whether the test was refused “due to a | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.