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 1988–2022 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. Fawcettgreen2 sentences2022This has since been referred to as the “Holesome test,” which, as stated, is comprised of two prongs: the first pertaining to the constitutional right to notice and the second pertaining to the constitutional 5 No. 2021AP174-CR protection against double jeopardy.3 See Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d at 251-53 (referring to and applying the “Holesome test”); State v. Kempainen, 2015 WI 32, ¶20 , 361 Wis. 2d 450 , 862 N.W.2d 587 (same); State v. Hurley, 2015 WI 35, ¶41 , 361 Wis. 2d 529 , 861 N.W.2d 174 (same).4 ¶14 A court reviews both the criminal complaint and the information in addressing a defendant’s 2020Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d at 251 (quoting Holesome v. State, 40 Wis. 2d 95, 102 , 161 N.W.2d 283 (1968)). | 3 | 6 |
State v. Brian S. Kempainengreen2 sentences2022This has since been referred to as the “Holesome test,” which, as stated, is comprised of two prongs: the first pertaining to the constitutional right to notice and the second pertaining to the constitutional 5 No. 2021AP174-CR protection against double jeopardy.3 See Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d at 251-53 (referring to and applying the “Holesome test”); State v. Kempainen, 2015 WI 32, ¶20 , 361 Wis. 2d 450 , 862 N.W.2d 587 (same); State v. Hurley, 2015 WI 35, ¶41 , 361 Wis. 2d 529 , 861 N.W.2d 174 (same).4 ¶14 A court reviews both the criminal complaint and the information in addressing a defendant’s 2022This has since been referred to as the “Holesome test,” which, as stated, is comprised of two prongs: the first pertaining to the constitutional right to notice and the second pertaining to the constitutional 5 No. 2021AP174-CR protection against double jeopardy.3 See Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d at 251-53 (referring to and applying the “Holesome test”); State v. Kempainen, 2015 WI 32, ¶20 , 361 Wis. 2d 450 , 862 N.W.2d 587 (same); State v. Hurley, 2015 WI 35, ¶41 , 361 Wis. 2d 529 , 861 N.W.2d 174 (same).4 ¶14 A court reviews both the criminal complaint and the information in addressing a defendant’s | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gaudesigreen2 sentences2015Cf. State v. Gaudesi, 112 Wis. 2d 213, 219 , 332 N.W.2d 302 (1983) ("The test under Wisconsin law of the sufficiency of the complaint is one of minimal adequacy, not in a hyper [-] technical but in a common sense evaluation, in setting forth the essential facts establishing probable cause.") (internal citations omitted). 11 To the extent that R.A.R. conflicts with the holding in Fawcett , and thus limits the factors a court may consider when applying the Holesome test, it is overruled. ¶ 29. 2015Cf. State v. Gaudesi, 112 Wis. 2d 213, 219 , 332 N.W.2d 302 (1983) ("The test under Wisconsin law of the sufficiency of the complaint is one of minimal adequacy, not in a hyper [-] technical but in a common sense evaluation, in setting forth the essential facts establishing probable cause.") (internal citations omitted). 11 To the extent that R.A.R. conflicts with the holding in Fawcett , and thus limits the factors a court may consider when applying the Holesome test, it is overruled. ¶ 29. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grawiengreen2 sentences1988State v. Grawien, 123 Wis. 2d 428, 432 , 367 N.W.2d 816, 818 (Ct. App. 1985). 1988State v. Grawien, 123 Wis. 2d 428, 432 , 367 N.W.2d 816, 818 (Ct. App. 1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holesome v. State
green
2 sentences2020Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d at 251 (quoting Holesome v. State, 40 Wis. 2d 95, 102 , 161 N.W.2d 283 (1968)). 2020Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d at 251 (quoting Holesome v. State, 40 Wis. 2d 95, 102 , 161 N.W.2d 283 (1968)). | 4 | 2002–2020 |
State v. Joel M. Hurley
green
2 sentences2022This has since been referred to as the “Holesome test,” which, as stated, is comprised of two prongs: the first pertaining to the constitutional right to notice and the second pertaining to the constitutional 5 No. 2021AP174-CR protection against double jeopardy.3 See Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d at 251-53 (referring to and applying the “Holesome test”); State v. Kempainen, 2015 WI 32, ¶20 , 361 Wis. 2d 450 , 862 N.W.2d 587 (same); State v. Hurley, 2015 WI 35, ¶41 , 361 Wis. 2d 529 , 861 N.W.2d 174 (same).4 ¶14 A court reviews both the criminal complaint and the information in addressing a defendant’s 2022This has since been referred to as the “Holesome test,” which, as stated, is comprised of two prongs: the first pertaining to the constitutional right to notice and the second pertaining to the constitutional 5 No. 2021AP174-CR protection against double jeopardy.3 See Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d at 251-53 (referring to and applying the “Holesome test”); State v. Kempainen, 2015 WI 32, ¶20 , 361 Wis. 2d 450 , 862 N.W.2d 587 (same); State v. Hurley, 2015 WI 35, ¶41 , 361 Wis. 2d 529 , 861 N.W.2d 174 (same).4 ¶14 A court reviews both the criminal complaint and the information in addressing a defendant’s | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF COOK v. Cook
green
2 sentences2015The court of appeals also explained that "only the supreme court. . . has the power to overrule, modify or withdraw language from a published opinion of the court of appeals." Id. (quoting Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189-90 , 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997)). 10 Furthermore, "[t]he ultimate question is whether the Holesome test has been met. 2015The court of appeals also explained that "only the supreme court. . . has the power to overrule, modify or withdraw language from a published opinion of the court of appeals." Id. (quoting Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189-90 , 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997)). 10 Furthermore, "[t]he ultimate question is whether the Holesome test has been met. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. RAR
green
2 sentences2014We also note that the court in State v. R.A.R., 148 Wis. 2d 408 , 435 N.W.2d 315 (Ct. App. 1988), offers no rationale for limiting the Holesome analysis to the last four factors absent a claimed lack of diligence. 2014We also note that the court in State v. R.A.R., 148 Wis. 2d 408 , 435 N.W.2d 315 (Ct. App. 1988), offers no rationale for limiting the Holesome analysis to the last four factors absent a claimed lack of diligence. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Fink v. City of Milwaukee
green
2 sentences2011It was in this context that the test that came to be known as the Holesome test was first set forth: Now it is an elementary rule of criminal law, that. . . the facts and circumstances which constitute the offense . . . must be stated with such certainty and precision that the defendant may be enabled to judge whether they constitute an indictable offense or not, in order that he may demur or plead to the indictment accordingly, prepare his defense, and be able to plead the conviction or acquittal in bar of another prosecution for the same offense." Fink, 17 Wis. at 28-29 . 2011It was in this context that the test that came to be known as the Holesome test was first set forth: Now it is an elementary rule of criminal law, that. . . the facts and circumstances which constitute the offense . . . must be stated with such certainty and precision that the defendant may be enabled to judge whether they constitute an indictable offense or not, in order that he may demur or plead to the indictment accordingly, prepare his defense, and be able to plead the conviction or acquittal in bar of another prosecution for the same offense." Fink, 17 Wis. at 28-29 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences2011In applying the Holesome test in a case involving allegations of child sexual assault during treatment sessions with a therapist, the court acknowledged "the problem of dimmed memories and the possibility that the defendant may not be able to sufficiently recall or reconstruct the history regarding the allegations"; it thus found it relevant under the facts of that case that the defendant, as the victim's therapist, "had the benefit of his own notes and records documenting the dates of his treatment sessions with [the victim]." Miller, 257 Wis. 2d 124, ¶ 35 . 2011In applying the Holesome test in a case involving allegations of child sexual assault during treatment sessions with a therapist, the court acknowledged "the problem of dimmed memories and the possibility that the defendant may not be able to sufficiently recall or reconstruct the history regarding the allegations"; it thus found it relevant under the facts of that case that the defendant, as the victim's therapist, "had the benefit of his own notes and records documenting the dates of his treatment sessions with [the victim]." Miller, 257 Wis. 2d 124, ¶ 35 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.