7 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stone v. Powellgreen2 sentences2008Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). 2008Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482 (1976). | 2 | 2 |
Ernest L. Smith, Trustee of the E. L. Schmidt Trust v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1999The doctrine of equitable recoupment "is a judge-made exception to the legislative policy of barring claims for and against the Government in tax matters by statutes of limitations." Smith v. United States, 373 F.2d 419, 422 (4th Cir. 1966). | 1 | 1 |
Holytz v. City of Milwaukeered2 sentences1986Holytz v. City of Milwaukee, 17 Wis. 2d 26, 32-33 , 115 N.W.2d 618, 620 (1962). 1986Holytz v. City of Milwaukee, 17 Wis. 2d 26, 32-33 , 115 N.W.2d 618, 620 (1962). | 1 | 1 |
USA F/u/b/o Vulcan Materials, Counter Cross-Appellant v. Volpe Construction, Counter Cross-Appelleesgreen1 sentence1984United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 880, 841-42, 847 (5th Cir. 1980). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jo Ann Williamsgreen1 sentence1984United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830, 841-42, 847 (5th Cir. 1980). | 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. Raflik
green
2 sentences2008In State v. Raflik, 2001 WI 129 , 248 Wis. 2d 593 , 636 N.W.2d 690 , this court stated: The suppression of evidence is not a constitutional right, but rather it is a judge-made rule used to deter misconduct by law enforcement officials. 2008In State v. Raflik, 2001 WI 129 , 248 Wis. 2d 593 , 636 N.W.2d 690 , this court stated: The suppression of evidence is not a constitutional right, but rather it is a judge-made rule used to deter misconduct by law enforcement officials. | 2 | 2006–2008 |
State v. Ward
green
2 sentences2001Ward addressed Eason's first argument, namely, "whether the exclusionary rule adopted in Hoyer is merely a judge-made rule, as the State contends, or whether, as the defendant argues, it is a personal right under the Wisconsin Constitution." Ward, 2000 WI 3, ¶ 57 . 2001Ward addressed Eason's first argument, namely, "whether the exclusionary rule adopted in Hoyer is merely a judge-made rule, as the State contends, or whether, as the defendant argues, it is a personal right under the Wisconsin Constitution." Ward, 2000 WI 3, ¶ 57 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bull v. United States
green
1 sentence1999The most often-cited and landmark case applying the doctrine is Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247 (1935). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.