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 2 courts 1989–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brian L. Halversongreen2 sentences2023See State v. Halverson, 2021 WI 7, ¶38 , 395 Wis. 2d 385 , 953 N.W.2d 847 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring) ("Because the Knapp court's interpretation of Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution lacks any mooring in text or history, this court should restore the original meaning of this constitutional provision."); Judge Diane S. Sykes, Reflections on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Hallows Lecture (March 7, 2006), in Marquette Lawyer, Summer/Fall 2006, at 60 ("The court's decision [in Knapp] rests not on the language or history of the state constitution's self-incrimination clau 2023See State v. Halverson, 2021 WI 7, ¶38 , 395 Wis. 2d 385 , 953 N.W.2d 847 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring) ("Because the Knapp court's interpretation of Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution lacks any mooring in text or history, this court should restore the original meaning of this constitutional provision."); Judge Diane S. Sykes, Reflections on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Hallows Lecture (March 7, 2006), in Marquette Lawyer, Summer/Fall 2006, at 60 ("The court's decision [in Knapp] rests not on the language or history of the state constitution's self-incrimination clau | 1 | 1 |
Schmerber v. Californiagreen1 sentence2008The privilege against self-incrimination protects a defendant from "being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise *405 provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature." Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761 (1966). ¶ 13. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidezgreen1 sentence2005See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 264 (1990) ("The privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment is a fundamental trial right of criminal defendants. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Moniagreen1 sentence2002The self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." 4 Because the Fifth *49 Amendment "speaks of compulsion," United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 (1943), the United States Supreme Court "has insisted that the 'constitutional guarantee is only that the witness not be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony.'" McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 , 122 S. Ct. 2017, 2026 (2002) (quoting United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 188 (1977)). | 1 | 1 |
Withrow v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2002Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 688 (1993) (citing Malloy v. *49 Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)). | 1 | 1 |
McKune v. Lilegreen2 sentences2002The self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." 4 Because the Fifth *49 Amendment "speaks of compulsion," United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 (1943), the United States Supreme Court "has insisted that the 'constitutional guarantee is only that the witness not be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony.'" McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 , 122 S. Ct. 2017, 2026 (2002) (quoting United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 188 (1977)). 2002The self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." 4 Because the Fifth *49 Amendment "speaks of compulsion," United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 (1943), the United States Supreme Court "has insisted that the 'constitutional guarantee is only that the witness not be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony.'" McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 , 122 S. Ct. 2017, 2026 (2002) (quoting United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 188 (1977)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2002The self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." 4 Because the Fifth *49 Amendment "speaks of compulsion," United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 (1943), the United States Supreme Court "has insisted that the 'constitutional guarantee is only that the witness not be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony.'" McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 , 122 S. Ct. 2017, 2026 (2002) (quoting United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 188 (1977)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1992State v. Rabe, 96 Wis. 2d 48 , 61-62 n.7, 291 N.W.2d 809 , 815-16 n.7 (1980); State v. Harris, 161 Wis. 2d 758, 760 , 469 N.W.2d 207, 208 (Ct. App. 1991). [2] In Ward , the Court held that a proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was not a "criminal case" under the self-incrimination clause of the fifth amendment. 448 U.S. at 253-55 . [3] The Halper court remanded the case to the district court to allow the government "an opportunity to present . . . an accounting of its actual costs arising from Halper's fraud." Id. at 452 . [4] For a di 1992State v. Rabe, 96 Wis. 2d 48 , 61-62 n.7, 291 N.W.2d 809 , 815-16 n.7 (1980); State v. Harris, 161 Wis. 2d 758, 760 , 469 N.W.2d 207, 208 (Ct. App. 1991). [2] In Ward , the Court held that a proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was not a "criminal case" under the self-incrimination clause of the fifth amendment. 448 U.S. at 253-55 . [3] The Halper court remanded the case to the district court to allow the government "an opportunity to present . . . an accounting of its actual costs arising from Halper's fraud." Id. at 452 . [4] For a di | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harborred2 sentences1989For a formulation of the basic policies of the self-incrimination clause of the fifth amendment, see Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52, 55 (1964). 1989Schultz refers to the latter right as the "right to be free from use, at trial, of statements which are compelled from previous court proceedings." There is no practical difference between this court's and Schultz's enunciation of this right. [9] For a formulation of the basic policies of the self-incrimination clause of the fifth amendment, see Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52, 55 (1964). [10] In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize that the defendant appears at the Goodchild hearing to testify only about issues relevant to the motion to suppress: At this hearing, the defendant | 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. Dubose
red
2 sentences2023See State v. Halverson, 2021 WI 7, ¶38 , 395 Wis. 2d 385 , 953 N.W.2d 847 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring) ("Because the Knapp court's interpretation of Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution lacks any mooring in text or history, this court should restore the original meaning of this constitutional provision."); Judge Diane S. Sykes, Reflections on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Hallows Lecture (March 7, 2006), in Marquette Lawyer, Summer/Fall 2006, at 60 ("The court's decision [in Knapp] rests not on the language or history of the state constitution's self-incrimination clau 2023See State v. Halverson, 2021 WI 7, ¶38 , 395 Wis. 2d 385 , 953 N.W.2d 847 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring) ("Because the Knapp court's interpretation of Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution lacks any mooring in text or history, this court should restore the original meaning of this constitutional provision."); Judge Diane S. Sykes, Reflections on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Hallows Lecture (March 7, 2006), in Marquette Lawyer, Summer/Fall 2006, at 60 ("The court's decision [in Knapp] rests not on the language or history of the state constitution's self-incrimination clau | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Malloy v. Hogan
green
1 sentence2002Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 688 (1993) (citing Malloy v. *49 Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Hall
green
1 sentence1997Id. at 68 , 557 N.W.2d at 783 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Rabe
green
2 sentences1992State v. Rabe, 96 Wis. 2d 48 , 61-62 n.7, 291 N.W.2d 809 , 815-16 n.7 (1980); State v. Harris, 161 Wis. 2d 758, 760 , 469 N.W.2d 207, 208 (Ct. App. 1991). [2] In Ward , the Court held that a proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was not a "criminal case" under the self-incrimination clause of the fifth amendment. 448 U.S. at 253-55 . [3] The Halper court remanded the case to the district court to allow the government "an opportunity to present . . . an accounting of its actual costs arising from Halper's fraud." Id. at 452 . [4] For a di 1992State v. Rabe, 96 Wis. 2d 48 , 61-62 n.7, 291 N.W.2d 809 , 815-16 n.7 (1980); State v. Harris, 161 Wis. 2d 758, 760 , 469 N.W.2d 207, 208 (Ct. App. 1991). [2] In Ward , the Court held that a proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was not a "criminal case" under the self-incrimination clause of the fifth amendment. 448 U.S. at 253-55 . [3] The Halper court remanded the case to the district court to allow the government "an opportunity to present . . . an accounting of its actual costs arising from Halper's fraud." Id. at 452 . [4] For a di | 1 | 1992–1992 |
United States v. Ward
green
2 sentences1992In Ward , the Court held that a proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was not a "criminal case” under the self-incrimination clause of the fifth amendment. 448 U.S. at 253-55 . 1992State v. Rabe, 96 Wis. 2d 48 , 61-62 n.7, 291 N.W.2d 809 , 815-16 n.7 (1980); State v. Harris, 161 Wis. 2d 758, 760 , 469 N.W.2d 207, 208 (Ct. App. 1991). [2] In Ward , the Court held that a proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was not a "criminal case" under the self-incrimination clause of the fifth amendment. 448 U.S. at 253-55 . [3] The Halper court remanded the case to the district court to allow the government "an opportunity to present . . . an accounting of its actual costs arising from Halper's fraud." Id. at 452 . [4] For a di | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State Ex Rel. Goodchild v. Burke
green
1 sentence1989Goodchild, 27 Wis. 2d at 265 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.