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 3 courts 1986–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2008The majority acknowledges that the first prong of the state action test, as described by Southern Motor Carriers, 471 U.S. at 57 , requires those seeking to extend state action antitrust immunity to private parties to show that the challenged anticompetitive conduct is conduct which is "clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy." See majority op., ¶ 77. 2008The purpose of the state action test is to determine "whether state regulation of private parties is shielded from the federal antitrust laws." Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U.S. 48, 57 (1985)(emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
Blum v. Yaretskygreen1 sentence2026See Blum, 457 U.S. at 1012 (White, J., concurring) (explaining that to “satisfy[] the state-action requirement,” “respondents must show that the transfer or discharge is made on the basis of some rule of decision for which the state is responsible” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Ritchiegreen1 sentence2023A criminal defendant sought access to confidential——but not privileged——records in the possession of a state agency with investigative duties but not in the prosecutor's possession. 480 U.S. at 42-44. | 1 | 1 |
Cameron v. City of Milwaukeegreen2 sentences1986See Cameron v. Milwaukee , 102 Wis.2d 448 , 457 , 307 N.W.2d 164 (1981). 1986See Cameron v. Milwaukee , 102 Wis.2d 448 , 457 , 307 N.W.2d 164 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Town of Hallie v. City of Chippewa Falls
green
2 sentences2008Id. ¶ 146 The purpose of the state action test is to determine "whether state regulation of private parties is shielded from the federal antitrust laws." Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U.S. 48, 57 , 105 S.Ct. 1721 , 85 L.Ed.2d 36 (1985) (emphasis added). 2008Cities are creatures of the state, derive their power from it, and are not recognized as independent sovereigns." Id. ¶ 145 It makes even less sense to apply the state action doctrine in this case. | 3 | 1990–2008 |
National Broiler Marketing Ass'n v. United States
green
1 sentence2008While conceding that the conceptual underpinnings of the federal "state action" doctrine are distinct from what it designates as the "implied repeal" doctrine, the majority nonetheless concludes that state action cases are "instructive and persuasive." Id., ¶ 74 & n. 23. ¶ 142 In an even more astounding concession, the majority admits, just before applying the state action doctrine, that this is not "technically" a state or municipal action case. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Group Life & Health Insurance v. Royal Drug Co.
green
2 sentences2008Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205, 231 , 99 S.Ct. 1067 , 59 L.Ed.2d 261 (1979). [8] The majority opinion echoes the tone of the defendants' argument that "[t]he only wrinkle presented by this case is the City did not formalize its regulation in the form of an ordinance." In response, Eichenseer issued the following strong rebuke: "Whether or not a regulation is to be found in the written law may be considered a mere `wrinkle' in certain totalitarian nations, but not in the United States." I concur with this statement. [9] Having explained why the majority's failure to establish the requisite 2008Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205, 231 , 99 S.Ct. 1067 , 59 L.Ed.2d 261 (1979). [8] The majority opinion echoes the tone of the defendants' argument that "[t]he only wrinkle presented by this case is the City did not formalize its regulation in the form of an ordinance." In response, Eichenseer issued the following strong rebuke: "Whether or not a regulation is to be found in the written law may be considered a mere `wrinkle' in certain totalitarian nations, but not in the United States." I concur with this statement. [9] Having explained why the majority's failure to establish the requisite | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Federal Trade Commission v. Ticor Title Insurance
green
2 sentences1993Id. at 421-24 . 1993Id. at 421-24 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall
green
2 sentences1987A disciplined perception of the proper role of the judiciary, and, more specifically, discernment of the reach of the mandates of our State constitution, precludes us from casting aside so fundamental a concept as State action in an effort to achieve what the dissent perceives as a more socially desirable result.” Id. at 505 , 488 N.E.2d at 1217 . 1987A disciplined perception of the proper role of the judiciary, and, more specifically, discernment of the reach of the mandates of our State constitution, precludes us from casting aside so fundamental a concept as State action in an effort to achieve what the dissent perceives as a more socially desirable result.” Id. at 505 , 488 N.E.2d at 1217 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.
green
1 sentence1986Any analysis of the state action doctrine must revolve around the two-pronged test articulated by a unanimous court in California Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc ., 445 U.S. 97 (1980). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.