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.
9 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ballard v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.green2 sentences2014In Ballard, this court stated that the absent witness instruction does not place a burden on a party to call "every possible witness to a fact." Id. 2014In Ballard , this court stated that the absent witness instruction does not place a burden on a party to call "every possible witness to a fact." Id. | 1 | 2 |
Graves v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014Absent Witness Instruction ¶12 Over a century ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a definitive statement of the absent witness rule: "[I]f a party has it peculiarly within his power to produce witnesses whose testimony would elucidate the transaction, the fact that he does not do it creates the presumption that the testimony, if 6 No. 2011AP1956 produced, would be unfavorable." Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121 (1893); Herbert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 911 F.2d 1044, 1046 (5th Cir. 1990). 2014Over a century ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a definitive statement of the absent witness rule: "[I]f a party has it peculiarly within his power to produce witnesses whose testimony would elucidate the transaction, the fact that he does not do it creates the presumption that the testimony, if produced, would be unfavorable." Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121 (1893); Herbert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 911 F.2d 1044, 1046 (5th Cir. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Coney v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.green2 sentences2014See Coney, 8 Wis. 2d at 527 (where employee was a material witness, "the failure on the part of the defendant to call its own employee as a witness, or to satisfactorily explain the reason for his not being called as a witness permits an inference that the witness' testimony would be or is unfavorable to the defendant's cause."). ¶89 In sum, the majority errs by analyzing its own skewed version of the circuit court's rationale rather than analyzing the actual rationale stated on the record. 2014See Coney, 8 Wis. 2d at 527 (where employee was a material witness, "the failure on the part of the defendant to call its own employee as a witness, or to satisfactorily explain the reason for his not being called as a witness permits an inference that the witness' testimony would be or is unfavorable to the defendant's cause."). ¶ 89. | 1 | 1 |
Jessie Herbert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2014Absent Witness Instruction ¶12 Over a century ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a definitive statement of the absent witness rule: "[I]f a party has it peculiarly within his power to produce witnesses whose testimony would elucidate the transaction, the fact that he does not do it creates the presumption that the testimony, if 6 No. 2011AP1956 produced, would be unfavorable." Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121 (1893); Herbert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 911 F.2d 1044, 1046 (5th Cir. 1990). 2014Over a century ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a definitive statement of the absent witness rule: "[I]f a party has it peculiarly within his power to produce witnesses whose testimony would elucidate the transaction, the fact that he does not do it creates the presumption that the testimony, if produced, would be unfavorable." Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121 (1893); Herbert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 911 F.2d 1044, 1046 (5th Cir. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Feldstein v. Harringtongreen2 sentences2014See Feldstein v. Harrington, 4 Wis. 2d 380, 390 , 90 N.W.2d 566 (1958) ("It also would have been proper for plaintiff's counsel to comment in the argument to the jury on such failure of the defendants to have called Dr. Houkom, if the fact had previously been established in evidence that such doctor had examined the plaintiff at the defendants' request."); cf. Ballard., 33 Wis. 2d at 615 ("[The court] did permit the defendant to comment to the jury upon the nonproduction of the chiropractor and, as a consequence, the defendant could not have been prejudiced by the failure to give the specific 2014See Feldstein v. Harrington, 4 Wis. 2d 380, 390 , 90 N.W.2d 566 (1958) ("It also would have been proper for plaintiff's counsel to comment in the argument to the jury on such failure of the defendants to have called Dr. Houkom, if the fact had previously been established in evidence that such doctor had examined the plaintiff at the defendants' request."); cf. Ballard., 33 Wis. 2d at 615 ("[The court] did permit the defendant to comment to the jury upon the nonproduction of the chiropractor and, as a consequence, the defendant could not have been prejudiced by the failure to give the specific | 1 | 1 |
Sweet v. Bergegreen2 sentences1999See Sweet v. Berge, 113 Wis. 2d 61, 67 , 334 N.W.2d 559, 562 (Ct. App. 1983). 13 The absent witness instruction, WlS J I — CIVIL 410, provides: *287 If a party fails to call a material witness within its control, or whom it would be more natural for that party to call than the opposing party, and the party fails to give a satisfactory explanation for not calling the witness, then you may infer that the evidence which the witness would give would be unfavorable to the party who failed to call the witness. 14 In an action against an employer to collect on a wage claim, the court may award an emp 1999See Sweet v. Berge, 113 Wis. 2d 61, 67 , 334 N.W.2d 559, 562 (Ct. App. 1983). 13 The absent witness instruction, WlS J I — CIVIL 410, provides: *287 If a party fails to call a material witness within its control, or whom it would be more natural for that party to call than the opposing party, and the party fails to give a satisfactory explanation for not calling the witness, then you may infer that the evidence which the witness would give would be unfavorable to the party who failed to call the witness. 14 In an action against an employer to collect on a wage claim, the court may award an emp | 1 | 1 |
Bode v. Buchmangreen2 sentences1996Completing this argument, Monarch cites Bode v. Buchman, 68 Wis. 2d 276 , 228 N.W.2d 718 (1975), and proposes that "[t]he availability of Gallet's testimony, of itself, mandated the trial court's denial of [DeChant's] request for the absent-witness instruction." We disagree. 1996Completing this argument, Monarch cites Bode v. Buchman, 68 Wis. 2d 276 , 228 N.W.2d 718 (1975), and proposes that "[t]he availability of Gallet's testimony, of itself, mandated the trial court's denial of [DeChant's] request for the absent-witness instruction." We disagree. | 1 | 1 |
Roeske v. Diefenbachgreen2 sentences1995Roeske v. Diefenbach, 75 Wis. 2d 253, 262 , 249 N.W.2d 555, 560 (1977). 1995Roeske v. Diefenbach, 75 Wis. 2d 253, 262 , 249 N.W.2d 555, 560 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Capello v. Janeczko
green
2 sentences2014Capello v. Janeczko, 47 Wis. 2d 76, 84-85 , 176 N.W.2d 395 (1970). 3. 2014Capello v. Janeczko, 47 Wis. 2d 76, 84-85 , 176 N.W.2d 395 (1970). 3. | 2 | 1972–2014 |
Thoreson v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.
green
2 sentences1975In Thoreson v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp. (1972), 56 Wis. 2d 281 , 201 N. W. 2d 745 , this court held that the absent-witness instruction was erroneously given where it was meant to refer to an unrelated passenger in a bus in an action where the defendant bus company did not call the passenger. 1975The criteria for the use of the absent witness instruction (Wis J I — Civil, Part I, 410) are set forth in Thoreson v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp. (1972), 56 Wis. 2d 231, 237 , 201 N. W. 2d 745 : *200 “The [absent witness] instruction may properly be given when a witness is not called if the witness is material and within the control of the party against whom the instruction is to be given or when it would be more natural for that party to call the witness.” In the instant case, the trial judge properly concluded that Polzin, as the employee of Gasser, was available to be called, in t | 2 | 1975–1975 |
DeChant v. Monarch Life Insurance
green
2 sentences2014Co., 204 Wis. 2d 137, 148 , 554 N.W.2d 225 (Ct. App. 1996). 2014Co., 204 Wis. 2d 137, 148 , 554 N.W.2d 225 (Ct. App. 1996). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Shaw v. Wuttke
green
2 sentences1976Shaw v. Wuttke (1965), 28 Wis. 2d 448, 459 , 137 N. W. 2d 649 . 1976Shaw v. Wuttke (1965), 28 Wis. 2d 448, 459 , 137 N. W. 2d 649 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Wurtzler v. Miller
green
1 sentence1967This court has stated: “Where the action is grounded on sec. 174.02 the negligence of the defendant dog owner is established when it is proved he kept a mischievous or vicious dog without proving that he knew the dog had such propensities.” Wurtzler v. Miller (1966), 31 Wis. (2d) 310, 318, 143 N. W. (2d) 27 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.