concluded defense in Wisconsin

2016In State v. Shata, 2015 WI 74, ¶¶ 59-61 , 364 Wis. 2d 83 , 868 N.W.2d 93 , a case involving deportation and ineffective assistance of counsel, this court noted that although a person convicted of a violation of laws relating to controlled substances is deportable, "such a conviction will not necessarily result in deportation." The court concluded that defense counsel did not render defective performance in advising the defendant that his plea carried a strong chance of deportation.

2016In State v. Shata, 2015 WI 74, ¶¶ 59-61 , 364 Wis. 2d 83 , 868 N.W.2d 93 , a case involving deportation and ineffective assistance of counsel, this court noted that although a person convicted of a violation of laws relating to controlled substances is deportable, "such a conviction will not necessarily result in deportation." The court concluded that defense counsel did not render defective performance in advising the defendant that his plea carried a strong chance of deportation.

2022Hester, 117 Wis. 2d at 363 .

1997Id. at 645 , 345 N.W.2d at 431 .

2004Kelley H., 263 Wis. 2d 241 , ถถ22-28.

2004Kelley H., 263 Wis. 2d 241, ¶¶ 22-28 .

1996Id. at 540 .

1996Id. at 540 .

2025The court also concluded that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument concerning A.B.’s IV treatments was not deficient because any objection would have been overruled. 4 “A Machner hearing is ‘[t]he evidentiary hearing to evaluate counsel’s effectiveness, which includes counsel’s testimony to explain his or her handling of the case.’” State v. Domke, 2011 WI 95 , ¶20 n.5, 337 Wis. 2d 268 , 805 N.W.2d 364 (citation omitted); see also State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979). 6 No. 2024AP19-CR ¶11 Valdovinos appeals his judgment

2025The court also concluded that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument concerning A.B.’s IV treatments was not deficient because any objection would have been overruled. 4 “A Machner hearing is ‘[t]he evidentiary hearing to evaluate counsel’s effectiveness, which includes counsel’s testimony to explain his or her handling of the case.’” State v. Domke, 2011 WI 95 , ¶20 n.5, 337 Wis. 2d 268 , 805 N.W.2d 364 (citation omitted); see also State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979). 6 No. 2024AP19-CR ¶11 Valdovinos appeals his judgment

2022In response to the plaintiff’s argument that defendants’ failure to appear at a hearing on a motion to enlarge the time to file the complaint waived their right to seek dismissal of the action, the court concluded that waiver was inapplicable: “Because there was no action pending and the statutes define the obligations of the defendants when an action is pending, there was no obligation to raise the defense at the time plaintiffs brought their motion for enlargement of time, and thus no waiver.” Id. at 429-30 . ¶18 Similarly, in Hester, the question was also whether the plaintiff commenced a p

2018Id. , ¶ 67.

2017On the contrary, the Wosinski Plaintiffs cite Tara N. v. Economy Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., 197 Wis. 2d 77 , 540 N.W.2d 26 (Ct. App. 1995), where this court concluded that a claim of psychological harm on its own falls within the definition of "bodily injury" in an insurance policy: Mental, emotional or psychological conditions are commonly considered as sickness or disease by both lay persons and medical professionals.

2017On the contrary, the Wosinski Plaintiffs cite Tara N. v. Economy Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., 197 Wis. 2d 77 , 540 N.W.2d 26 (Ct. App. 1995), where this court concluded that a claim of psychological harm on its own falls within the definition of "bodily injury" in an insurance policy: Mental, emotional or psychological conditions are commonly considered as sickness or disease by both lay persons and medical professionals.

2011The court concluded the error in the notice of election did not invalidate the ballot question, which, the court said, "was what the electors came directly in contact with . . . presumably read . . . and it is natural to assume that the question on the ballot was controlling." Id. at 622 .

2011The court acknowledged it could not tell how many electors read the erroneous explanation, but stated it was "inconceivable that as many as 45,000 electors [approximately the number of "yes" votes that would have had to vote "no" to change the outcome] would read it or that they were misled in their voting." Id. at 621 . ¶ 29.

2011The court concluded this error was not "fatally material" because the voters "knew what [the ordinance] was for," since it "had been brought to their attention in the manner provided by law." Id. at 485 .

2009Id. at 153-54 .

2008Id., ¶¶ 49-52. ¶ 26 In State v. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, ¶¶ 81-89 , 236 Wis.2d 537 , 613 N.W.2d 606 , this court analyzed whether a prosecutor's statements during closing arguments required reversal under the plain error doctrine.

2008Id., ¶¶ 49-52. ¶ 26 In State v. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, ¶¶ 81-89 , 236 Wis.2d 537 , 613 N.W.2d 606 , this court analyzed whether a prosecutor's statements during closing arguments required reversal under the plain error doctrine.

2007In Master Disposal, Inc. v. Village of Menomonee Falls, 60 Wis. 2d 653, 659 , 211 N.W.2d 477 (1973), the court concluded that a challenge to the lack of due process in the manner in which the administrative agency applied the ordinances does not go to the validity of the ordinance and therefore should be challenged in certiorari review of the agency decision, not in a declaratory judgment action. 19 In Sawejka v. Morgan, 56 Wis. 2d 70, 80-81 , 201 N.W.2d 528 (1972), the court held that the circuit court properly applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to permit the tax appeals commission

2007In Master Disposal, Inc. v. Village of Menomonee Falls, 60 Wis. 2d 653, 659 , 211 N.W.2d 477 (1973), the court concluded that a challenge to the lack of due process in the manner in which the administrative agency applied the ordinances does not go to the validity of the ordinance and therefore should be challenged in certiorari review of the agency decision, not in a declaratory judgment action. 19 In Sawejka v. Morgan, 56 Wis. 2d 70, 80-81 , 201 N.W.2d 528 (1972), the court held that the circuit court properly applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to permit the tax appeals commission

2007Id. *134 ¶ 74 The Court concluded that had defense counsel looked at the prior conviction file, "it is uncontested they would have found a range of mitigation leads that no other source had opened up." Id. at 390 , 125 S.Ct. 2456 .

2007Id. *134 ¶ 74 The Court concluded that had defense counsel looked at the prior conviction file, "it is uncontested they would have found a range of mitigation leads that no other source had opened up." Id. at 390 , 125 S.Ct. 2456 .

2007In Master Disposal, Inc. v. Village of Menomonee Falls, 60 Wis. 2d 653, 659 , 211 N.W.2d 477 (1973), the court concluded that a challenge to the lack of due process in the manner in which the administrative agency applied the ordinances does not go to the validity of the ordinance and therefore should be challenged in certiorari review of the agency decision, not in a declaratory judgment action. 19 In Sawejka v. Morgan, 56 Wis. 2d 70, 80-81 , 201 N.W.2d 528 (1972), the court held that the circuit court properly applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to permit the tax appeals commission

2007In Master Disposal, Inc. v. Village of Menomonee Falls, 60 Wis. 2d 653, 659 , 211 N.W.2d 477 (1973), the court concluded that a challenge to the lack of due process in the manner in which the administrative agency applied the ordinances does not go to the validity of the ordinance and therefore should be challenged in certiorari review of the agency decision, not in a declaratory judgment action. 19 In Sawejka v. Morgan, 56 Wis. 2d 70, 80-81 , 201 N.W.2d 528 (1972), the court held that the circuit court properly applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to permit the tax appeals commission

2006The court concluded its analysis with the language relied upon now by the State: " [accordingly, we hold that a circuit court has the authority under Wis. Stat. § 980.08 (5) to order a county, through DHFS, to create whatever programs or facilities are necessary to accommodate an order for supervised release." Sprosty, 227 Wis. 2d at 331 . ¶ 37.

2006The Chapman court held that for a federal constitutional error to be held harmless, "the court must be able to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 .

2005In Lingle , the Court concluded that this standard is not a valid method of identifying regulatory takings for which the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation. 17 125 S. Ct. at 2085 . *501 ¶ 39.

2005Id. at 606 . ¶ 10.

2004The court concluded this clause was ambiguous as to whether "the catastrophic damage to a machine resulting from an initial mechanical breakdown" was an "ensuing peril." Id. at 288 .

2004Id. *449 at 656.

2003Id. at 130 .

2002Eau Claire Oil Co., 35 Wis. 2d at 734 . ¶ 62.

2002Eau Claire Oil Co., 35 Wis. 2d at 734 . ¶ 62.

2001Id. at 527-28 .

2001Id. at 527—28.

2001Id.

2000Id. at 251 . ¶ 32.

2000Id. at 251 . ¶ 32.