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.
7 Wisconsin opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Warehouse II, LLC v. State Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence2020See Warehouse II, 291 Wis. 2d 80, ¶4 . ¶9 The castle doctrine, codified by WIS. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robert Joseph Stietzgreen2 sentences2018See State v. Stietz , 2017 WI 58 , ¶ 61, 375 Wis. 2d 572 , 895 N.W.2d 796 (an error in refusing to instruct the jury on a requested defense instruction is subject to the harmless error rule). 2018See State v. Stietz , 2017 WI 58 , ¶ 61, 375 Wis. 2d 572 , 895 N.W.2d 796 (an error in refusing to instruct the jury on a requested defense instruction is subject to the harmless error rule). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Petersgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Peters, 2002 WI App 243, ¶¶ 21-22 , 258 Wis. 2d 148 , 653 N.W.2d 300 (certain self-defense instruction should be given when there is "some evidence" to support its application). 2014See State v. Peters, 2002 WI App 243, ¶¶ 21-22 , 258 Wis. 2d 148 , 653 N.W.2d 300 (certain self-defense instruction should be given when there is "some evidence" to support its application). | 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. Chew
neutral
2 sentences2018STAT. § 939.48(1m) (2015-16). 2 The castle doctrine "generally provides that use of force is presumably justified when a person is defending himself ... against an unlawful and forcible intruder in that person's home." State v. Chew , 2014 WI App 116 , ¶1, 358 Wis. 2d 368 , 856 N.W.2d 541 . 2018STAT. § 939.48(1m) (2015-16). 2 The castle doctrine "generally provides that use of force is presumably justified when a person is defending himself ... against an unlawful and forcible intruder in that person's home." State v. Chew , 2014 WI App 116 , ¶1, 358 Wis. 2d 368 , 856 N.W.2d 541 . | 4 | 2018–2020 |
Shadley v. Lloyds of London
green
2 sentences2023“It is well-established law in Wisconsin that those issues not presented to the [circuit] court will not be considered for the first time at the appellate level.” Shadley v. Lloyds of London, 2009 WI App 165, ¶25 , 322 Wis. 2d 189 , 776 N.W.2d 838 . 2023“It is well-established law in Wisconsin that those issues not presented to the [circuit] court will not be considered for the first time at the appellate level.” Shadley v. Lloyds of London, 2009 WI App 165, ¶25 , 322 Wis. 2d 189 , 776 N.W.2d 838 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Multaler
green
2 sentences2020STAT. § 948.12, subjects a person to twenty-five years in prison, and each image they possess can be prosecuted separately, State v. Multaler, 2002 WI 35 , 252 Wis. 2d 54 , 643 N.W.2d 437 , with a minimum period of confinement of three years, WIS. 2020STAT. § 948.12, subjects a person to twenty-five years in prison, and each image they possess can be prosecuted separately, State v. Multaler, 2002 WI 35 , 252 Wis. 2d 54 , 643 N.W.2d 437 , with a minimum period of confinement of three years, WIS. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Collova
green
2 sentences2020The castle doctrine represents a public policy determination by the legislature that homeowners ordinarily do not have a duty to retreat from trespassers and, when lethal force is used, are entitled to a presumption that the homeowner reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.9 8 See State v. Collova, 79 Wis. 2d 473, 488 , 255 N.W.2d 581 (1977). 9 The castle doctrine provision states in part as follows: (ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court 2020The castle doctrine represents a public policy determination by the legislature that homeowners ordinarily do not have a duty to retreat from trespassers and, when lethal force is used, are entitled to a presumption that the homeowner reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.9 8 See State v. Collova, 79 Wis. 2d 473, 488 , 255 N.W.2d 581 (1977). 9 The castle doctrine provision states in part as follows: (ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.