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 1994–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Stuartgreen2 sentences2003For another application of the Bauer test, see State v. Stuart, 2003 WI 73 , 262 Wis. 2d 620 , 664 N.W.2d 82 . 14 Tomlinson, 254 Wis. 2d 502 , ¶ 46 n.7; Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d at 210-13 . 2003For another application of the Bauer test, see State v. Stuart, 2003 WI 73 , 262 Wis. 2d 620 , 664 N.W.2d 82 . 14 Tomlinson, 254 Wis. 2d 502 , ¶ 46 n.7; Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d at 210-13 . | 1 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2019See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 687 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Thornton v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2010By the Court. — Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions. 1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 The Supreme Court further recognized, without discussion, that "[a]lthough it does not follow from Chimel [v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)], we also conclude that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is 'reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.'" Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1719 (2009) (quoting Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 632 (2004) (Scalia, J. | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Gantgreen1 sentence2010By the Court. — Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions. 1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 The Supreme Court further recognized, without discussion, that "[a]lthough it does not follow from Chimel [v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)], we also conclude that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is 'reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.'" Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1719 (2009) (quoting Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 632 (2004) (Scalia, J. | 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. Bauer
green
2 sentences2003For another application of the Bauer test, see State v. Stuart, 2003 WI 73 , 262 Wis. 2d 620 , 664 N.W.2d 82 . 14 Tomlinson, 254 Wis. 2d 502 , ¶ 46 n.7; Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d at 210-13 . 2003For another application of the Bauer test, see State v. Stuart, 2003 WI 73 , 262 Wis. 2d 620 , 664 N.W.2d 82 . 14 Tomlinson, 254 Wis. 2d 502 , ¶ 46 n.7; Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d at 210-13 . | 3 | 1994–2003 |
State v. Avery
green
1 sentence2019"If the defendant is able to make this showing, then the circuit court must determine whether a reasonable probability exists that a different result would be reached in a trial." Id. (quoted source omitted). ¶26 Assuming without deciding that Dr. Thompson's report constitutes newly discovered evidence, we dispose of this claim for relief because it suffers from the same infirmity as Bauer's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Chimel v. California
red
1 sentence2010By the Court. — Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions. 1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 The Supreme Court further recognized, without discussion, that "[a]lthough it does not follow from Chimel [v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)], we also conclude that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is 'reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.'" Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1719 (2009) (quoting Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 632 (2004) (Scalia, J. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2010By the Court. — Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions. 1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 The Supreme Court further recognized, without discussion, that "[a]lthough it does not follow from Chimel [v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)], we also conclude that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is 'reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.'" Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1719 (2009) (quoting Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 632 (2004) (Scalia, J. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Tomlinson
green
2 sentences2003For another application of the Bauer test, see State v. Stuart, 2003 WI 73 , 262 Wis. 2d 620 , 664 N.W.2d 82 . 14 Tomlinson, 254 Wis. 2d 502 , ¶ 46 n.7; Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d at 210-13 . 2003For another application of the Bauer test, see State v. Stuart, 2003 WI 73 , 262 Wis. 2d 620 , 664 N.W.2d 82 . 14 Tomlinson, 254 Wis. 2d 502 , ¶ 46 n.7; Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d at 210-13 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.