9 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Illinois v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2018"As with other factual determinations bearing upon search and seizure, determination of consent to enter must be 'judged against an objective reasonable person standard.' " Illinois v. Rodriguez , 497 U.S. 177 , 188, 110 S.Ct. 2793 , 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) ; Jimeno , 500 U.S. at 251 , 111 S.Ct. 1801 . 2018"As with other factual determinations bearing upon search and seizure, determination of consent to enter must be 'judged against an objective reasonable person standard.' " Illinois v. Rodriguez , 497 U.S. 177 , 188, 110 S.Ct. 2793 , 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) ; Jimeno , 500 U.S. at 251 , 111 S.Ct. 1801 . | 1 | 2 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2018The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that this objective standard protects citizens from police overreach, as "[a]nything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches." Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 , 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 2018The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that this objective standard protects citizens from police overreach, as "[a]nything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches." Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 , 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Williams, 2002 WI 94, ¶4 , 255 Wis. 2d 1 , 646 N.W.2d 834 (we apply an objective reasonable person test to determine whether a seizure has occurred based on the officer’s words and actions under the totality of circumstances). 10 No. 2019AP1155 understand what happened at an accident scene when the occupants had fled. 2020See State v. Williams, 2002 WI 94, ¶4 , 255 Wis. 2d 1 , 646 N.W.2d 834 (we apply an objective reasonable person test to determine whether a seizure has occurred based on the officer’s words and actions under the totality of circumstances). 10 No. 2019AP1155 understand what happened at an accident scene when the occupants had fled. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Swansongreen2 sentences2008See State v. Swanson, 164 Wis. 2d 437, 446-47 , 475 N.W.2d 148 (1991). 2008See State v. Swanson, 164 Wis. 2d 437, 446-47 , 475 N.W.2d 148 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Perkins
green
2 sentences2019We thus are bound by our state supreme court’s decision in Perkins, which makes clear that a true threat is determined using an objective reasonable person standard: “A true threat is a statement that a speaker would reasonably foresee that a listener would reasonably interpret as a serious expression of a purpose to inflict harm.” Perkins, 243 Wis. 2d 141, ¶29 . 2001As explained in State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, ¶ 29 , 243 Wis. 2d 141 , 626 N.W.2d 762 , the true-threat test applies "an objective reasonable person standard," based on reasonable foreseeability, not intent. | 2 | 2001–2019 |
Florida v. Jimeno
green
2 sentences2018"As with other factual determinations bearing upon search and seizure, determination of consent to enter must be 'judged against an objective reasonable person standard.' " Illinois v. Rodriguez , 497 U.S. 177 , 188, 110 S.Ct. 2793 , 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) ; Jimeno , 500 U.S. at 251 , 111 S.Ct. 1801 . 2018"As with other factual determinations bearing upon search and seizure, determination of consent to enter must be 'judged against an objective reasonable person standard.' " Illinois v. Rodriguez , 497 U.S. 177 , 188, 110 S.Ct. 2793 , 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) ; Jimeno , 500 U.S. at 251 , 111 S.Ct. 1801 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Hart v. State
green
2 sentences2006The supreme court explained in Hart, 75 Wis. 2d 371 , that the "high degree of negligence" required for criminal culpability "is distinguished not by any different mental state on the part of the actor [as compared to ordinary negligence creating civil liability in tort], but by the existence of a high probability of death or great bodily harm as measured by the objective reasonable person test." Id. at 383 . 2006The supreme court explained in Hart, 75 Wis. 2d 371 , that the "high degree of negligence" required for criminal culpability "is distinguished not by any different mental state on the part of the actor [as compared to ordinary negligence creating civil liability in tort], but by the existence of a high probability of death or great bodily harm as measured by the objective reasonable person test." Id. at 383 . | 2 | 1996–2006 |
Gould v. American Family Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2003This was made explicit in Gould v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 198 Wis. 2d 450 , 543 N.W.2d 282 (1996), where the court said: It is a widely accepted rule in most American jurisdictions that mentally disabled adults are held responsible for the torts they commit regardless of their capacity to comprehend their actions; they are held to an objective reasonable person standard. 2003This was made explicit in Gould v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 198 Wis. 2d 450 , 543 N.W.2d 282 (1996), where the court said: It is a widely accepted rule in most American jurisdictions that mentally disabled adults are held responsible for the torts they commit regardless of their capacity to comprehend their actions; they are held to an objective reasonable person standard. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Cooper
green
2 sentences1996In State v. Cooper, 117 Wis. 2d 30 , 344 N.W.2d 194 (Ct. App. 1983), we construed § 940.08, Stats., 1981-82, which is similar to § 940.24, Stats., 1 in concluding that the test for criminal negligence "is purely objective. 1996In State v. Cooper, 117 Wis. 2d 30 , 344 N.W.2d 194 (Ct. App. 1983), we construed § 940.08, Stats., 1981-82, which is similar to § 940.24, Stats., 1 in concluding that the test for criminal negligence "is purely objective. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.