7 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gimbels Midwest, Inc. v. Northwestern National Insurancegreen2 sentences2025Co., 72 Wis. 2d 84 , 240 N.W.2d 140 (1976). ¶26 However, in Gambrell and Gimbels, our state supreme court addressed whether the valued policy law required the insurance companies in those cases to pay the full face value of buildings damaged by fires and ordered 6 Somewhat contradictorily, D.M.B. asserts that Germantown “had the ability to challenge the raze order but failed to do so.” (Formatting altered.) It is unclear why Germantown’s failure to challenge the raze order should be held against it where, as we explain in this opinion, Germantown was not liable for the costs associated with th 2025Co., 72 Wis. 2d 84 , 240 N.W.2d 140 (1976). ¶26 However, in Gambrell and Gimbels, our state supreme court addressed whether the valued policy law required the insurance companies in those cases to pay the full face value of buildings damaged by fires and ordered 6 Somewhat contradictorily, D.M.B. asserts that Germantown “had the ability to challenge the raze order but failed to do so.” (Formatting altered.) It is unclear why Germantown’s failure to challenge the raze order should be held against it where, as we explain in this opinion, Germantown was not liable for the costs associated with th | 1 | 1 |
Gambrell v. Campbellsport Mutual Insurancegreen1 sentence2025Gambrell, 47 Wis. 2d at 485, 487-93 ; Gimbels, 72 Wis. 2d at 89, 91 . | 1 | 1 |
cluster 694606green1 sentence2021Council, 52 F.3d at 1503-04 (concluding that the record of decision approving the construction of a dam was a final agency action). 10 No. 2019AP2434 ¶17 Finally, Friends implies that it will not have the ability to challenge all of the alleged flaws in the EIS if it is forced to seek judicial review only of discrete permits (or similar final actions). | 1 | 1 |
Puchner v. Hepperlagreen2 sentences2011See Puchner v. Hepperla, 2001 WI App 50, ¶ 6 , 241 Wis. 2d 545 , 625 N.W.2d 609 . 2011See Puchner v. Hepperla, 2001 WI App 50, ¶ 6 , 241 Wis. 2d 545 , 625 N.W.2d 609 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nerisongreen2 sentences2002See Nerison, 136 Wis. 2d at 45 . 2002See Nerison, 136 Wis. 2d at 45 . | 1 | 1 |
Rakas v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1981See 439 U.S., at 149-150, n. 17 , 99 S. Ct., at 434, n. 17 . 1981See 439 U.S., at 149-150, n. 17 , 99 S. Ct., *714 at 434, n. 17. | 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. Charles E. Butts
green
1 sentence2026O’Brien, 354 Wis. 2d 753, ¶53 . ¶62 Robinson argues that defendants have no “realistic ability to challenge the plausibility of the State’s case” when the prosecution takes the approach that was taken here. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Kleser
green
1 sentence2024The plain language used in Kleser paired with probable cause findings that can be based entirely on hearsay demand that 12 No. 2023AP218-CR juvenile defendants have a meaningful “right to attempt to negate that specific [jurisdictional] offense during the preliminary examination—to prevent the [S]tate from prevailing on the specific offense charged, or possibly, to deprive the criminal court of its ‘exclusive original jurisdiction.’” Kleser, 328 Wis. 2d 42, ¶60 . ¶26 However, Kleser recognized and we are mindful that “the legislature did not intend the reverse waiver hearing to be a minitrial[ | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.