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.
6 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1887–2023 3 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. Jonesgreen1 sentence2021No adjournment was requested. 17 No. 2020AP247-CR ¶40 On appeal, Fowler asserts that he did not trust counsel and that he had “clearly indicated breakdown in the attorney client relationship.” He says that at the second hearing, he “discussed specific instances of” counsel’s failure to discuss the case with him; “[h]ence, clearly, the attorney client-breakdown had been long standing.” He argues that the trial court’s analysis was “insufficient, erroneous, and inadequate” and that his complaints “do legally constitute cause for the granting of a Motion to Withdraw[.]” ¶41 Whether to grant a req | 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. Gove
green
2 sentences2023Id., ¶11 (quoting State v. Gove, 148 Wis. 2d 936, 944 , 437 N.W.2d 218 (1989)). ¶19 Here, the County argues—and we agree—that the same outcome should obtain. 2023Id., ¶11 (quoting State v. Gove, 148 Wis. 2d 936, 944 , 437 N.W.2d 218 (1989)). ¶19 Here, the County argues—and we agree—that the same outcome should obtain. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lessard v. Schmidt
green
1 sentence2021She argues that we should still reach this issue on the merits “because the facts with respect to this issue are undisputed and the case presents an issue of law.” ¶11 A.A.L. cites to Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078 (E.D. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wood
neutral
2 sentences1995He has twice previously been disciplined for professional misconduct: in 1985, he consented to a private reprimand by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) for, among other things, misusing his status as an attorney and using information he obtained in representation of a client against the client; in 1992, the court publicly reprimanded him for misrepresenting to an administrative agency the reason he requested an adjournment of a hearing, accepting compensation for legal services from a person other than his client without obtaining his client's consent after full disclo 1995He has twice previously been disciplined for professional misconduct: in 1985, he consented to a private reprimand by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) for, among other things, misusing his status as an attorney and using information he obtained in representation of a client against the client; in 1992, the court publicly reprimanded him for misrepresenting to an administrative agency the reason he requested an adjournment of a hearing, accepting compensation for legal services from a person other than his client without obtaining his client's consent after full disclo | 1 | 1995–1995 |
R. T. Madden, Inc. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations
green
2 sentences1975Madden, Inc. v. ILHR Department (1969), 43 Wis. 2d 528, 536 , 169 N. W. 2d 73 , quoting the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Crownhart in McCarthy v. Sawyer-Goodman Co. (1927), 194 Wis. 198, 205 , 215 N. W. 824 .) No flagrant abuse of discretion was found in Fleisner where the department examiner refused to grant an adjournment of hearing to permit introduction of the direct testimony of two treating physicians. 1975Madden, Inc. v. ILHR Department (1969), 43 Wis. 2d 528, 536 , 169 N. W. 2d 73 , quoting the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Crownhart in McCarthy v. Sawyer-Goodman Co. (1927), 194 Wis. 198, 205 , 215 N. W. 824 .) No flagrant abuse of discretion was found in Fleisner where the department examiner refused to grant an adjournment of hearing to permit introduction of the direct testimony of two treating physicians. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
McCarthy v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1975Madden, Inc. v. ILHR Department (1969), 43 Wis. 2d 528, 536 , 169 N. W. 2d 73 , quoting the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Crownhart in McCarthy v. Sawyer-Goodman Co. (1927), 194 Wis. 198, 205 , 215 N. W. 824 .) No flagrant abuse of discretion was found in Fleisner where the department examiner refused to grant an adjournment of hearing to permit introduction of the direct testimony of two treating physicians. 1975Madden, Inc. v. ILHR Department (1969), 43 Wis. 2d 528, 536 , 169 N. W. 2d 73 , quoting the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Crownhart in McCarthy v. Sawyer-Goodman Co. (1927), 194 Wis. 198, 205 , 215 N. W. 824 .) No flagrant abuse of discretion was found in Fleisner where the department examiner refused to grant an adjournment of hearing to permit introduction of the direct testimony of two treating physicians. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Ruhland v. Supervisors of the Town of Hazel Green
green
1 sentence1887In the recent case of Ruhland v. Sup'rs, 55 Wis. 664 , the defect was too long an adjournment of the hearing, and decision and by consent. | 1 | 1887–1887 |
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.