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.
8 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Michael Clifton Chasegreen1 sentence2002See United States v. Chase, 18 F.3d 1166, 1168-73 (4th Cir. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gaethke v. Pozder
green
2 sentences2021Instead, the circuit court admitted Hying’s proposed exhibits on the day of the hearing. 10 No. 2019AP1433 376 Wis. 2d 448 , 899 N.W.2d 381 . 2021Instead, the circuit court admitted Hying’s proposed exhibits on the day of the hearing. 10 No. 2019AP1433 376 Wis. 2d 448 , 899 N.W.2d 381 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Lorscheter v. Lorscheter
neutral
1 sentence2011For example, in Lorscheter v. Lorscheter, 52 Wis. 2d 804, 808 , 191 N.W 200 (1971), the court concluded that a party in a default divorce proceeding was not entitled to substitute a new attorney on the day of the hearing when she had not complied with the statutory framework governing attorney substitution in pending actions. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
David Christensen Trucking & Excavating, Inc. v. Mehdian
green
1 sentence2007David Christensen Trucking, 2006 WI App 254, ¶ 3 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. McKee
green
2 sentences2003State v. McKee, 2002 WI App 148 , ¶ 21 n.8, 256 Wis. 2d 547 , 648 N.W.2d 34 (internal citation omitted). 2003State v. McKee, 2002 WI App 148 , ¶ 21 n.8, 256 Wis. 2d 547 , 648 N.W.2d 34 (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences1993Id. at 255-56 . 1993Id. at 255-56 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Knauber v. Smith Schnacke
green
2 sentences1991The court reasoned that the letter put Knauber on "notice that the partnership agreement could defeat Thaler's bequest to him . . .." Id., 42 Ohio App. 3d at 5 , 536 N.E.2d at 407 . [14] In the case at bar, on October 13, 1981, Hennekens stood in the same position as the plaintiff in Knauber on the day his claim accrued. 1991The court reasoned that the letter put Knauber on "notice that the partnership agreement could defeat Thaler's bequest to him . . .." Id., 42 Ohio App. 3d at 5 , 536 N.E.2d at 407 . [14] In the case at bar, on October 13, 1981, Hennekens stood in the same position as the plaintiff in Knauber on the day his claim accrued. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Schy v. Susquehanna Corporation
green
1 sentence1980In Schy v. Susquehanna Corporation, 419 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1970) cert. denied 400 U.S. 826 (1970), the court of appeals held that failure to object to the trial court’s allowing affidavits to be filed the day of the hearing on a motion precludes its assertion as error on appeal: “The plaintiff next complains that the district court erroneously considered affidavits and exhibits filed on the day of the hearing in violation of rule 6(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Tulloch v. Von Utter
green
1 sentence1980In Schy v. Susquehanna Corporation, 419 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1970) cert. denied 400 U.S. 826 (1970), the court of appeals held that failure to object to the trial court’s allowing affidavits to be filed the day of the hearing on a motion precludes its assertion as error on appeal: “The plaintiff next complains that the district court erroneously considered affidavits and exhibits filed on the day of the hearing in violation of rule 6(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.