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 1896–2026 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. Kyle Lee Monahangreen2 sentences2026See State v. Monahan, 2018 WI 80, ¶35 , 383 Wis. 2d 100 , 913 N.W.2d 894 (in “our application of the harmless error rule,” we consider “the importance of the erroneously included or excluded evidence”). ¶47 The State’s evidence against Reeves was strong. 2026See State v. Monahan, 2018 WI 80, ¶35 , 383 Wis. 2d 100 , 913 N.W.2d 894 (in “our application of the harmless error rule,” we consider “the importance of the erroneously included or excluded evidence”). ¶47 The State’s evidence against Reeves was strong. | 1 | 1 |
Myers v. Stategreen2 sentences1975The importance of this rule was recognized in Myers v. State (1978), 60 Wis. 2d 248, 263, 264 , 208 N. W. 2d 311 : “. . . [N] ot to allow the defendant at trial ‘access to’ and the ‘right to use’ prior inconsistent statements for ‘impeachment purposes’ is a violation of his constitutional right to due process of law. . . .” In that case it was held to be reversible error to deny the defendant the right to use a witness’ testimony from a John Doe hearing for impeachment purposes. 1975The importance of this rule was recognized in Myers v. State (1978), 60 Wis. 2d 248, 263, 264 , 208 N. W. 2d 311 : “. . . [N] ot to allow the defendant at trial ‘access to’ and the ‘right to use’ prior inconsistent statements for ‘impeachment purposes’ is a violation of his constitutional right to due process of law. . . .” In that case it was held to be reversible error to deny the defendant the right to use a witness’ testimony from a John Doe hearing for impeachment purposes. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McNeil v. Wisconsin
green
1 sentence2008The importance of this rule is emphasized by the consequences of not following it: "the suspect's statements are presumed involuntary *98 and therefore inadmissible as substantive evidence at trial, even where the suspect executes a waiver and his statements would be considered voluntary under traditional standards." Id. at 177 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Sutter v. State
green
1 sentence2005Nevertheless, the instant case is distinguishable from Sutter , wherein the "controversy [w]as .. . fully tried upon the merits and the rights of the parties conclusively determined." Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Freeman v. Krause Milling Co.
green
2 sentences1998Hood, Benjamin A. Hardy, Jr. & *355 Harold S. Lewis, Jr., Workers' Compensation and Employee Protection Laws in a Nutshell 45 (2d ed. 1990). 3 See DePratt, 102 Wis. 2d at 146-47 ; Freeman v. Krause Milling Co., 43 Wis. 2d 392 , 394 n.2, 168 N.W.2d 599 (1969). 4 The court has stated the importance of this inquiry as follows: In compensation law, the spotlight must now be turned upon the employee, for the first question of all is: Did he make a contract of hire with the special employer? 1998Hood, Benjamin A. Hardy, Jr. & *355 Harold S. Lewis, Jr., Workers' Compensation and Employee Protection Laws in a Nutshell 45 (2d ed. 1990). 3 See DePratt, 102 Wis. 2d at 146-47 ; Freeman v. Krause Milling Co., 43 Wis. 2d 392 , 394 n.2, 168 N.W.2d 599 (1969). 4 The court has stated the importance of this inquiry as follows: In compensation law, the spotlight must now be turned upon the employee, for the first question of all is: Did he make a contract of hire with the special employer? | 1 | 1998–1998 |
DePratt v. Sergio
green
1 sentence1998Hood, Benjamin A. Hardy, Jr. & *355 Harold S. Lewis, Jr., Workers' Compensation and Employee Protection Laws in a Nutshell 45 (2d ed. 1990). 3 See DePratt, 102 Wis. 2d at 146-47 ; Freeman v. Krause Milling Co., 43 Wis. 2d 392 , 394 n.2, 168 N.W.2d 599 (1969). 4 The court has stated the importance of this inquiry as follows: In compensation law, the spotlight must now be turned upon the employee, for the first question of all is: Did he make a contract of hire with the special employer? | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Carviou
green
2 sentences1996As the court of appeals observed shortly after American TV was decided, the "supreme court has decided that even when a judge commits ethical violations by presiding over a case, his actions do not constitute grounds for recusal." State v. Carivou, 154 Wis. 2d 641, 644 , 454 N.W.2d 562 (Ct. App. 1990). 1996As the court of appeals observed shortly after American TV was decided, the "supreme court has decided that even when a judge commits ethical violations by presiding over a case, his actions do not constitute grounds for recusal." State v. Carivou, 154 Wis. 2d 641, 644 , 454 N.W.2d 562 (Ct. App. 1990). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Air Wisconsin, Inc. v. North Central Airlines, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990Failure to object at the conference constitutes a waiver of any error in the proposed instructions or verdict. [Emphasis supplied.] In Air Wisconsin, Inc. v. North Central Airlines, Inc., 98 Wis. 2d 301, 311 , 296 N.W.2d 749 (1980), this court emphasized the importance of the rule (sec. 805.13(3), Stats.) requiring that a particularized objection be made and that the grounds for objection to both jury instructions and special verdict questions be stated on the record. 1990Failure to object at the conference constitutes a waiver of any error in the proposed instructions or verdict. [Emphasis supplied.] In Air Wisconsin, Inc. v. North Central Airlines, Inc., 98 Wis. 2d 301, 311 , 296 N.W.2d 749 (1980), this court emphasized the importance of the rule (sec. 805.13(3), Stats.) requiring that a particularized objection be made and that the grounds for objection to both jury instructions and special verdict questions be stated on the record. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Denny v. Mertz
green
2 sentences1989Denny, 106 Wis. 2d at 650 , 318 N.W.2d at 147-48 . 1989Denny, 106 Wis. 2d at 650 , 318 N.W.2d at 147-48 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Ogden v. Saunders
green
1 sentence1896J., in Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213 , and often cited with approval by this court: “ It is a general rule that the positive authority of a decision is coextensive only with the facts on which it is made.” It follows that we hold that the term “ discharged,” as: used in sec. 3968, B. | 1 | 1896–1896 |
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.