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 1978–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Medranogreen2 sentences1980“Any prejudicial effect which might have flowed from the statement was cured by the court’s immediate instruction to the jury to disregard the statement.” State v. Medrano, 84 Wis. 2d 11, 25 , 267 N.W.2d 586 (1978). 1980“Any prejudicial effect which might have flowed from the statement was cured by the court’s immediate instruction to the jury to disregard the statement.” State v. Medrano, 84 Wis. 2d 11, 25 , 267 N.W.2d 586 (1978). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Truaxgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Adams, 221 Wis. 2d 1, 17 , 584 N.W.2d 695 (Ct. App. 1998) (“[A]ny prejudicial effect that might have flowed from the testimony was cured by the court’s immediate instruction to the jury to disregard the testimony in its entirety.”); State v. Hagen, 181 Wis. 2d 934, 949 , 512 N.W.2d 180 (Ct. App. 1994) (“Given the trial court’s swift and appropriate curative action, the presumption that the jury followed the court’s curative instruction, and the court’s own assessment of the offending conduct, we conclude that a new trial is not warranted in this case.”); see also Sigarroa, 269 Wis 2020See State v. Adams, 221 Wis. 2d 1, 17 , 584 N.W.2d 695 (Ct. App. 1998) (“[A]ny prejudicial effect that might have flowed from the testimony was cured by the court’s immediate instruction to the jury to disregard the testimony in its entirety.”); State v. Hagen, 181 Wis. 2d 934, 949 , 512 N.W.2d 180 (Ct. App. 1994) (“Given the trial court’s swift and appropriate curative action, the presumption that the jury followed the court’s curative instruction, and the court’s own assessment of the offending conduct, we conclude that a new trial is not warranted in this case.”); see also Sigarroa, 269 Wis | 1 | 1 |
Illinois v. Caballesgreen1 sentence2020Id. (citing Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 327-28 (2009); Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 406 (2005)). ¶16 Notably, the Supreme Court has held that during a traffic stop, an officer may make ordinary inquiries incident to the stop, beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket. | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2020Id. (citing Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 327-28 (2009); Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 406 (2005)). ¶16 Notably, the Supreme Court has held that during a traffic stop, an officer may make ordinary inquiries incident to the stop, beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Adams, 221 Wis. 2d 1, 17 , 584 N.W.2d 695 (Ct. App. 1998) (“[A]ny prejudicial effect that might have flowed from the testimony was cured by the court’s immediate instruction to the jury to disregard the testimony in its entirety.”); State v. Hagen, 181 Wis. 2d 934, 949 , 512 N.W.2d 180 (Ct. App. 1994) (“Given the trial court’s swift and appropriate curative action, the presumption that the jury followed the court’s curative instruction, and the court’s own assessment of the offending conduct, we conclude that a new trial is not warranted in this case.”); see also Sigarroa, 269 Wis 2020See State v. Adams, 221 Wis. 2d 1, 17 , 584 N.W.2d 695 (Ct. App. 1998) (“[A]ny prejudicial effect that might have flowed from the testimony was cured by the court’s immediate instruction to the jury to disregard the testimony in its entirety.”); State v. Hagen, 181 Wis. 2d 934, 949 , 512 N.W.2d 180 (Ct. App. 1994) (“Given the trial court’s swift and appropriate curative action, the presumption that the jury followed the court’s curative instruction, and the court’s own assessment of the offending conduct, we conclude that a new trial is not warranted in this case.”); see also Sigarroa, 269 Wis | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hagengreen2 sentences2020See State v. Adams, 221 Wis. 2d 1, 17 , 584 N.W.2d 695 (Ct. App. 1998) (“[A]ny prejudicial effect that might have flowed from the testimony was cured by the court’s immediate instruction to the jury to disregard the testimony in its entirety.”); State v. Hagen, 181 Wis. 2d 934, 949 , 512 N.W.2d 180 (Ct. App. 1994) (“Given the trial court’s swift and appropriate curative action, the presumption that the jury followed the court’s curative instruction, and the court’s own assessment of the offending conduct, we conclude that a new trial is not warranted in this case.”); see also Sigarroa, 269 Wis 2020See State v. Adams, 221 Wis. 2d 1, 17 , 584 N.W.2d 695 (Ct. App. 1998) (“[A]ny prejudicial effect that might have flowed from the testimony was cured by the court’s immediate instruction to the jury to disregard the testimony in its entirety.”); State v. Hagen, 181 Wis. 2d 934, 949 , 512 N.W.2d 180 (Ct. App. 1994) (“Given the trial court’s swift and appropriate curative action, the presumption that the jury followed the court’s curative instruction, and the court’s own assessment of the offending conduct, we conclude that a new trial is not warranted in this case.”); see also Sigarroa, 269 Wis | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sigarroagreen1 sentence2020See State v. Adams, 221 Wis. 2d 1, 17 , 584 N.W.2d 695 (Ct. App. 1998) (“[A]ny prejudicial effect that might have flowed from the testimony was cured by the court’s immediate instruction to the jury to disregard the testimony in its entirety.”); State v. Hagen, 181 Wis. 2d 934, 949 , 512 N.W.2d 180 (Ct. App. 1994) (“Given the trial court’s swift and appropriate curative action, the presumption that the jury followed the court’s curative instruction, and the court’s own assessment of the offending conduct, we conclude that a new trial is not warranted in this case.”); see also Sigarroa, 269 Wis | 1 | 1 |
State v. Marshallgreen2 sentences1982State v. Marshall, 92 Wis. 2d 101, 112 , 284 N.W.2d 592, 596-97 (1979). 1982State v. Marshall, 92 Wis. 2d 101, 112 , 284 N.W.2d 592, 596-97 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dombrowskigreen2 sentences1980State v. Dombrowski, 44 Wis.2d 486, 506 , 171 N.W.2d 349, 360 (1969). 1980State v. Dombrowski, 44 Wis.2d 486, 506 , 171 N.W.2d 349, 360 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences1978Harris, supra, 52 Wis.2d at 706. 1978Harris, supra, 52 Wis.2d at 706 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rodriguez v. United States
green
1 sentence2020Id. (citing Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 327-28 (2009); Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 406 (2005)). ¶16 Notably, the Supreme Court has held that during a traffic stop, an officer may make ordinary inquiries incident to the stop, beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.