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 1969–2025 4 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. Corey J.G.green1 sentence2025See id. at 407-08 . ¶14 In any event, even if Pearson-Robb’s argument is that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish venue in Racine County, we conclude venue was sufficiently established in Racine County. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Randlegreen2 sentences2003See State v. Randle, 2002 WI App 116, ¶¶ 13-16 , 252 Wis. 2d 743 , 647 N.W.2d 324 , review denied, 2002 WI 109 , 254 Wis. 2d 262 , 648 N.W.2d 477 (Wis. Jun. 11, 2002) (No. 01-1448-CR). 12 The trial court commented as follows on this issue at the postconviction hearing: The property was delivered from the [Hartford couple] to [Brown] in the State of Wisconsin. 2003See State v. Randle, 2002 WI App 116, ¶¶ 13-16 , 252 Wis. 2d 743 , 647 N.W.2d 324 , review denied, 2002 WI 109 , 254 Wis. 2d 262 , 648 N.W.2d 477 (Wis. Jun. 11, 2002) (No. 01-1448-CR). 12 The trial court commented as follows on this issue at the postconviction hearing: The property was delivered from the [Hartford couple] to [Brown] in the State of Wisconsin. | 1 | 1 |
Community Credit Plan, Inc. v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1998See Community Credit Plan, Inc. v. Johnson, 221 Wis. 2d 766 , 586 N.W.2d 77 (Ct. App. 1998). 2 Section 421.401, STATS., reads: Venue. (1) The venue for a claim arising out of a consumer transaction or a consumer credit transaction is the county: (a) Where the customer resides or is personally served; (b) Where collateral securing a consumer credit transaction is located; or (c) Where the customer sought or acquired the property, services, money or credit which is the subject of the transaction or signed the document evidencing his or her obligation under the terms of the transaction. (2) When 1998See Community Credit Plan, Inc. v. Johnson, 221 Wis. 2d 766 , 586 N.W.2d 77 (Ct. App. 1998). 2 Section 421.401, STATS., reads: Venue. (1) The venue for a claim arising out of a consumer transaction or a consumer credit transaction is the county: (a) Where the customer resides or is personally served; (b) Where collateral securing a consumer credit transaction is located; or (c) Where the customer sought or acquired the property, services, money or credit which is the subject of the transaction or signed the document evidencing his or her obligation under the terms of the transaction. (2) When | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Department of Natural Resources v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV
green
2 sentences2022We explained in DNR that there is no "appellate pathway" to seek review of appellate venue questions, and that obtaining review of such 12 questions via a petition for review "would depend on a serendipitous confluence between (1) the venue error, and (2) a 'plus' factor, such as we describe in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1r) (criteria for granting review)." 380 Wis. 2d 354, ¶43 . 2022We explained in DNR that there is no "appellate pathway" to seek review of appellate venue questions, and that obtaining review of such 12 questions via a petition for review "would depend on a serendipitous confluence between (1) the venue error, and (2) a 'plus' factor, such as we describe in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1r) (criteria for granting review)." 380 Wis. 2d 354, ¶43 . | 3 | 2022–2022 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF COOK v. Cook
green
2 sentences2018Therefore, a successful petition for review in this case would depend on a serendipitous confluence between (1) the venue error, and (2) a "plus" factor, such as we describe in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1r) (criteria for granting review). ¶44 Because a petition for review in this case would require a "plus" factor just to bring the venue issue before us, 18 "Supreme court review is a matter of judicial discretion, not of right . . . ." Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1r). 19 The court of appeals' "primary function is error correcting"; "the supreme court's primary function is that of law defining 2018Therefore, a successful petition for review in this case would depend on a serendipitous confluence between (1) the venue error, and (2) a "plus" factor, such as we describe in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1r) (criteria for granting review). ¶44 Because a petition for review in this case would require a "plus" factor just to bring the venue issue before us, 18 "Supreme court review is a matter of judicial discretion, not of right . . . ." Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1r). 19 The court of appeals' "primary function is error correcting"; "the supreme court's primary function is that of law defining | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kett v. Community Credit Plan, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008The circuit court concluded that the venue requirement of Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2) was nonwaivable, relying on Kett v. Community Credit Plan, Inc., 228 Wis. 2d 1, 12-15 , 596 N.W.2d 786 (1999), and determined that Nuvell had not waived the improper venue. 2008The circuit court concluded that the venue requirement of Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2) was nonwaivable, relying on Kett v. Community Credit Plan, Inc., 228 Wis. 2d 1, 12-15 , 596 N.W.2d 786 (1999), and determined that Nuvell had not waived the improper venue. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Irvin v. Dowd
red
2 sentences1969As the Supreme Court said in Dowd : `No doubt each juror was sincere when he said that he would be fair and impartial to petitioner, but the psychological impact requiring such a declaration before one's fellows is often its father.' 366 U. S. 717 . . . ." The denial of the defendant's motion, which in the alternative asked for a hearing on community prejudice, denied the defendant (contrary to the assertion of the majority opinion) an opportunity "to make a record of community prejudice." This is true because the judge made it clear that, in the case of a misdemeanor, community prejudice was 1969As the Supreme Court said in Dowd : ‘No doubt each juror was sincere when he said that he would be fair and impartial to petitioner, but the psychological impact requiring such a declaration before one’s fellows is often its father.’ 366 U. S. 717 . . . .” The denial of the defendant’s motion, which in the alternative asked for a hearing on community prejudice, denied the defendant (contrary to the assertion of the majority opinion) an opportunity “to make a record of community prejudice.” This is true because the judge made it clear that, in the case of a misdemeanor, community prejudice was | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.