8 Wisconsin opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Neavegreen2 sentences1987See State v. Neave, 117 Wis. 2d 359, 369 , 344 N.W.2d 181, 186 (1984). 1987See State v. Neave, 117 Wis. 2d 359, 369 , 344 N.W.2d 181, 186 (1984). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Allengreen1 sentence2020See Allen, 274 Wis. 2d 568, ¶¶9, 12-14 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bolliggreen2 sentences2020See State v. Bollig, 2000 WI 6, ¶¶28-29 , 232 Wis. 2d 561 , 605 N.W.2d 199 . 2020See State v. Bollig, 2000 WI 6, ¶¶28-29 , 232 Wis. 2d 561 , 605 N.W.2d 199 . | 1 | 1 |
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019Washington filed a motion to dismiss the charge, arguing that this prosecution violates the 2 Washington is also currently charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm; he does not challenge that charge in this appeal. 2 No. 2018AP1254-CR constitutional protections against double jeopardy, and further, that it is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. ¶6 At a hearing held in June 2018, the circuit court denied Washington’s motion.3 The court held that there was no double jeopardy violation because the elements required to prove felony murder are not the same as those required 2019See State v. Steinhardt, 2017 WI 62, ¶11 , 375 Wis. 2d 712 , 896 N.W.2d 700 . ¶8 In determining whether a subsequent prosecution is violating double jeopardy, we apply the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in 3 The Honorable Jeffrey A. Conen presided over the first trial, and also heard Washington’s motion to dismiss. 3 No. 2018AP1254-CR Blockburger.4 Blockburger states that “where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision req | 1 | 1 |
State v. Heather L. Steinhardtgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Steinhardt, 2017 WI 62, ¶11 , 375 Wis. 2d 712 , 896 N.W.2d 700 . ¶8 In determining whether a subsequent prosecution is violating double jeopardy, we apply the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in 3 The Honorable Jeffrey A. Conen presided over the first trial, and also heard Washington’s motion to dismiss. 3 No. 2018AP1254-CR Blockburger.4 Blockburger states that “where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision req 2019See State v. Steinhardt, 2017 WI 62, ¶11 , 375 Wis. 2d 712 , 896 N.W.2d 700 . ¶8 In determining whether a subsequent prosecution is violating double jeopardy, we apply the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in 3 The Honorable Jeffrey A. Conen presided over the first trial, and also heard Washington’s motion to dismiss. 3 No. 2018AP1254-CR Blockburger.4 Blockburger states that “where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision req | 1 | 1 |
State v. Witkowskigreen2 sentences2012See State v. Witkowski, 163 Wis. 2d 985, 990 , 473 N.W.2d 512 (Ct. App. 1991). 2012See State v. Witkowski, 163 Wis. 2d 985, 990 , 473 N.W.2d 512 (Ct. App. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smitergreen2 sentences2012See State v. Smiter, 2011 WI App 15, ¶ 9 , 331 Wis. 2d 431 , 793 N.W.2d 920 (Ct. App. 2010) (We are not bound by the circuit court's reasoning in affirming its order.). 2012See State v. Smiter, 2011 WI App 15, ¶ 9 , 331 Wis. 2d 431 , 793 N.W.2d 920 (Ct. App. 2010) (We are not bound by the circuit court's reasoning in affirming its order.). | 1 | 1 |
Bin-Rilla v. Israelgreen2 sentences2012See bin-Rilla v. Israel, 113 Wis. 2d 514, 520 , 335 N.W.2d 384 (1983) (We liberally construe a pro se defendant's motion and are not bound by the defendant's labels.); see also Loop v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 499, 501 , 222 N.W.2d 694 (1974) (§ 974.06 motions are properly used to bring issues of jurisdictional or constitutional dimension before the court). 2012See bin-Rilla v. Israel, 113 Wis. 2d 514, 520 , 335 N.W.2d 384 (1983) (We liberally construe a pro se defendant's motion and are not bound by the defendant's labels.); see also Loop v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 499, 501 , 222 N.W.2d 694 (1974) (§ 974.06 motions are properly used to bring issues of jurisdictional or constitutional dimension before the court). | 1 | 1 |
Loop v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See bin-Rilla v. Israel, 113 Wis. 2d 514, 520 , 335 N.W.2d 384 (1983) (We liberally construe a pro se defendant's motion and are not bound by the defendant's labels.); see also Loop v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 499, 501 , 222 N.W.2d 694 (1974) (§ 974.06 motions are properly used to bring issues of jurisdictional or constitutional dimension before the court). 2012See bin-Rilla v. Israel, 113 Wis. 2d 514, 520 , 335 N.W.2d 384 (1983) (We liberally construe a pro se defendant's motion and are not bound by the defendant's labels.); see also Loop v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 499, 501 , 222 N.W.2d 694 (1974) (§ 974.06 motions are properly used to bring issues of jurisdictional or constitutional dimension before the court). | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2002Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 513 (1978), recognizes the removal option as being within the exercise of the trial court's "special respect" discretion and, therefore, it would be part and parcel of Seefeldt's double jeopardy claim under the Washington analysis. [2] Contrary to the majority opinion's insistence that Bart's issuance of bad checks was not WIS. 2002Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 513 (1978), recognizes the removal option as being within the exercise of the trial court's "special respect" discretion and, therefore, it would be part and parcel of Seefeldt's double jeopardy claim under the Washington analysis. [2] Contrary to the majority opinion's insistence that Bart's issuance of bad checks was not WIS. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Avery
green
1 sentence2026“A court reviewing the newly discovered evidence should consider whether a jury would find that the evidence ‘had a sufficient impact on other evidence presented at trial that a jury would have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.’” Id. (citation omitted). ¶36 The trial court denied Washington’s claim of newly discovered evidence finding that the witness did not demonstrate that she had any knowledge of who shot Grimes and because her testimony that she overheard Grimes arrange a drug deal on the phone would not have altered the outcome of the trial given the overwhelming amount of | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Vonaire T. Washington v. Judy Smith, Warden, Oshkosh Correctional Institution
green
1 sentence2006Id. at 633-34 . ¶ 57. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.