operative principle in Wisconsin

2020Fiedler v. Wis. Senate, 155 Wis. 2d 94, 100 , 454 N.W.2d 770 (1990) (ellipses in original)). ¶213 The operative principle here is not that the branches should not delegate their core authority, it is that they cannot.

2020Fiedler v. Wis. Senate, 155 Wis. 2d 94, 100 , 454 N.W.2d 770 (1990) (ellipses in original)). ¶213 The operative principle here is not that the branches should not delegate their core authority, it is that they cannot.

2023See Breza v. Kiffmeyer, 723 N.W.2d 633, 636 (Minn. 2006). 10 No. 2020AP2003.awb ¶180 In contrast, WJI cites language in Ekern itself as providing the operative standard: "It is clear and unambiguous, so as to enable voters to vote intelligently." Ekern, 187 Wis. at 204 . "[T]he principal and essential criterion consists in a submission of a question or a form which has for its object and purpose an intelligent and comprehensive submission to the people, so that the latter may be fully informed on the subject upon which they are required to exercise a franchise." Id. at 201-02 ; Thomson, 264 Wi

2023Co., 122 Wis. 2d 94, 103 , 362 N.W.2d 118 (1985), the operative analysis here focuses on whether the three claims dismissed on statute-of- limitations grounds would have succeeded but for Maslowski’s allegedly untimely filing. ¶14 Mueller generally acknowledges that the circuit court in Mueller I dismissed the relevant claims both on statute-of-limitations grounds and on their merits.

2023Co., 122 Wis. 2d 94, 103 , 362 N.W.2d 118 (1985), the operative analysis here focuses on whether the three claims dismissed on statute-of- limitations grounds would have succeeded but for Maslowski’s allegedly untimely filing. ¶14 Mueller generally acknowledges that the circuit court in Mueller I dismissed the relevant claims both on statute-of-limitations grounds and on their merits.

2023See Breza v. Kiffmeyer, 723 N.W.2d 633, 636 (Minn. 2006). 10 No. 2020AP2003.awb ¶180 In contrast, WJI cites language in Ekern itself as providing the operative standard: "It is clear and unambiguous, so as to enable voters to vote intelligently." Ekern, 187 Wis. at 204 . "[T]he principal and essential criterion consists in a submission of a question or a form which has for its object and purpose an intelligent and comprehensive submission to the people, so that the latter may be fully informed on the subject upon which they are required to exercise a franchise." Id. at 201-02 ; Thomson, 264 Wi

2023See Breza v. Kiffmeyer, 723 N.W.2d 633, 636 (Minn. 2006). 10 No. 2020AP2003.awb ¶180 In contrast, WJI cites language in Ekern itself as providing the operative standard: "It is clear and unambiguous, so as to enable voters to vote intelligently." Ekern, 187 Wis. at 204 . "[T]he principal and essential criterion consists in a submission of a question or a form which has for its object and purpose an intelligent and comprehensive submission to the people, so that the latter may be fully informed on the subject upon which they are required to exercise a franchise." Id. at 201-02 ; Thomson, 264 Wi

2020We conclude that it was, and therefore we affirm. ¶2 The parties agree that the operative test is set forth in State v. Perry, 136 Wis. 2d. 92, 401 N.W.2d 748 (1987).

2014To the extent Fouts could have argued an exception other than the joint client exception applies, he has missed his opportunity. 3 See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court will not address undeveloped and inadequately briefed arguments). ¶ 25.

2014To the extent Fouts could have argued an exception other than the joint client exception applies, he has missed his opportunity. 3 See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court will not address undeveloped and inadequately briefed arguments). ¶ 25.

2010Errors arising from "nonrecurring and attenuated negligence" are "far removed from the core concerns that led [the Court] to adopt the rule in the first place." Id. ¶ 81 The United States Supreme Court then summarized the operative rule for application of the exclusionary rule: To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.

1993A second decision the majority relies upon is Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978).

1993The Williams Court also commented, "[s]tudies of the operative factors contributing to small group deliberations and decisionmaking suggest that jurors in the minority on the first ballot are likely to be influenced by the proportional size of the majority aligned against them." Id. at 101 n.49.1 cannot reach a conclusion from this comment, but it does suggest that a lone dissenter on a thirteen-person jury is more likely to "cave in" to the other twelve than a lone dissenter on a twelve-person jury is to "cave in" to the other eleven.

1993The Williams Court also commented, "[s]tudies of the operative factors contributing to small group deliberations and decisionmaking suggest that jurors in the minority on the first ballot are likely to be influenced by the proportional size of the majority aligned against them." Id. at 101 n.49.