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 1983–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bentzler v. Braungreen2 sentences2002The seat belt defense was first recognized in Bentzler v. Braun, 34 Wis. 2d 362, 385 , 149 N.W.2d 626 (1967). ¶ 26. 2002The seat belt defense was first recognized in Bentzler v. Braun, 34 Wis. 2d 362, 385 , 149 N.W.2d 626 (1967). ¶ 26. | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Ronald T. Johnsongreen1 sentence2004In Betow, the court of appeals, relying on an Eighth Circuit case, declared: There is no question that a police officer may stop a vehicle when he or she reasonably believes the driver is violating a traffic law; and, once stopped, the driver *560 may be asked questions reasonably related to the nature of the stop — including his or her destination and purpose. 226 Wis. 2d at 93 (citing United States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Lukowski v. Dankertgreen2 sentences1994See generally Lukowski v. Dankert, 184 Wis. 2d 142, 154 , 515 N.W.2d 883, 888 (1994) (supreme court *457 upheld arbitration award on personal injury case where expert testimony was not given on seat belt defense). 1994See generally Lukowski v. Dankert, 184 Wis. 2d 142, 154 , 515 N.W.2d 883, 888 (1994) (supreme court *457 upheld arbitration award on personal injury case where expert testimony was not given on seat belt defense). | 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. Betow
green
1 sentence2004In Betow, the court of appeals, relying on an Eighth Circuit case, declared: There is no question that a police officer may stop a vehicle when he or she reasonably believes the driver is violating a traffic law; and, once stopped, the driver *560 may be asked questions reasonably related to the nature of the stop — including his or her destination and purpose. 226 Wis. 2d at 93 (citing United States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1995)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Foley v. City of West Allis
green
2 sentences2002This is not intended to alter the seat belt defense, which continues to be governed by Foley v. City of West Allis, 113 Wis. 2d 475 , 335 N.W.2d 824 (1983), as modified by Wis. Stat. § 347.48 (2m)(g). 2002This is not intended to alter the seat belt defense, which continues to be governed by Foley v. City of West Allis, 113 Wis. 2d 475 , 335 N.W.2d 824 (1983), as modified by Wis. Stat. § 347.48 (2m)(g). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Gaertner v. Holcka
green
2 sentences2002In Gaertner v. Holcka, 219 Wis. 2d 436 , 580 N.W.2d 271 (1998), this court analyzed the effect of the statutory change as follows: By amending Wis. Stat. § 347.48 , the legislature explicitly adopted our interpretation of the seat belt defense. 2002In Gaertner v. Holcka, 219 Wis. 2d 436 , 580 N.W.2d 271 (1998), this court analyzed the effect of the statutory change as follows: By amending Wis. Stat. § 347.48 , the legislature explicitly adopted our interpretation of the seat belt defense. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Holbach v. Classified Ins. Corp.
green
2 sentences1994Corp., 155 Wis. 2d 412, 413-414 , 455 N.W.2d 260 (Ct. App. 1990), which states that "expert testimony is always required to establish a seat belt defense." It is her argument that allowing the seat belt defense without requiring expert testimony is a perverse misconstruction of the law and constitutes a manifest disregard of the law. 1994Corp., 155 Wis. 2d 412, 413-414 , 455 N.W.2d 260 (Ct. App. 1990), which states that "expert testimony is always required to establish a seat belt defense." It is her argument that allowing the seat belt defense without requiring expert testimony is a perverse misconstruction of the law and constitutes a manifest disregard of the law. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.