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 1978–2021 2 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. Harborgreen2 sentences2021State v. Harbor, 2011 WI 28, ¶¶40, 52 , 333 Wis. 2d 53 , 797 N.W.2d 828 (internal quotation marks and quoted source omitted). ¶30 A circuit court’s decision on sentence modification involves a two- step inquiry. 2021State v. Harbor, 2011 WI 28, ¶¶40, 52 , 333 Wis. 2d 53 , 797 N.W.2d 828 (internal quotation marks and quoted source omitted). ¶30 A circuit court’s decision on sentence modification involves a two- step inquiry. | 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. Samuel
green
2 sentences2021“We apply a two- step standard of review to constitutional search and seizure inquiries.” State v. Matejka, 2001 WI 5, ¶16 , 241 Wis. 2d 52 , 621 N.W.2d 891 . “[W]e uphold a circuit court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, but we independently determine whether those facts meet the constitutional standard.” State v. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, ¶15 , 252 Wis. 2d 26 , 643 N.W.2d 423 . 7 No. 2019AP588-CR ¶13 A traffic stop, “even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Popke, 2009 WI 37, ¶11 2021“We apply a two- step standard of review to constitutional search and seizure inquiries.” State v. Matejka, 2001 WI 5, ¶16 , 241 Wis. 2d 52 , 621 N.W.2d 891 . “[W]e uphold a circuit court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, but we independently determine whether those facts meet the constitutional standard.” State v. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, ¶15 , 252 Wis. 2d 26 , 643 N.W.2d 423 . 7 No. 2019AP588-CR ¶13 A traffic stop, “even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Popke, 2009 WI 37, ¶11 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Matejka
green
2 sentences2021“We apply a two- step standard of review to constitutional search and seizure inquiries.” State v. Matejka, 2001 WI 5, ¶16 , 241 Wis. 2d 52 , 621 N.W.2d 891 . “[W]e uphold a circuit court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, but we independently determine whether those facts meet the constitutional standard.” State v. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, ¶15 , 252 Wis. 2d 26 , 643 N.W.2d 423 . 7 No. 2019AP588-CR ¶13 A traffic stop, “even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Popke, 2009 WI 37, ¶11 2021“We apply a two- step standard of review to constitutional search and seizure inquiries.” State v. Matejka, 2001 WI 5, ¶16 , 241 Wis. 2d 52 , 621 N.W.2d 891 . “[W]e uphold a circuit court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, but we independently determine whether those facts meet the constitutional standard.” State v. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, ¶15 , 252 Wis. 2d 26 , 643 N.W.2d 423 . 7 No. 2019AP588-CR ¶13 A traffic stop, “even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Popke, 2009 WI 37, ¶11 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Popke
green
2 sentences2021“We apply a two- step standard of review to constitutional search and seizure inquiries.” State v. Matejka, 2001 WI 5, ¶16 , 241 Wis. 2d 52 , 621 N.W.2d 891 . “[W]e uphold a circuit court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, but we independently determine whether those facts meet the constitutional standard.” State v. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, ¶15 , 252 Wis. 2d 26 , 643 N.W.2d 423 . 7 No. 2019AP588-CR ¶13 A traffic stop, “even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Popke, 2009 WI 37, ¶11 2021“We apply a two- step standard of review to constitutional search and seizure inquiries.” State v. Matejka, 2001 WI 5, ¶16 , 241 Wis. 2d 52 , 621 N.W.2d 891 . “[W]e uphold a circuit court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, but we independently determine whether those facts meet the constitutional standard.” State v. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, ¶15 , 252 Wis. 2d 26 , 643 N.W.2d 423 . 7 No. 2019AP588-CR ¶13 A traffic stop, “even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Popke, 2009 WI 37, ¶11 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. John Patrick Wright
green
2 sentences2021“The ‘mission’ of a traffic stop includes: (1) addressing the traffic violation that warranted the stop; (2) conducting ordinary inquiries incident to the stop; and (3) taking negligibly burdensome precautions to ensure officer safety.” State v. Wright, 2019 WI 45, ¶24 , 386 Wis. 2d 495 , 926 N.W.2d 157 (citations omitted). 2021“The ‘mission’ of a traffic stop includes: (1) addressing the traffic violation that warranted the stop; (2) conducting ordinary inquiries incident to the stop; and (3) taking negligibly burdensome precautions to ensure officer safety.” State v. Wright, 2019 WI 45, ¶24 , 386 Wis. 2d 495 , 926 N.W.2d 157 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Post
green
1 sentence2020“A question of constitutional fact is a mixed question of law and fact to which we apply a two- step standard of review.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Eason
green
2 sentences2019State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, ¶9 , 245 Wis. 2d 206 , 629 N.W.2d 625 . ¶20 First, we will uphold the circuit court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. 2019State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, ¶9 , 245 Wis. 2d 206 , 629 N.W.2d 625 . ¶20 First, we will uphold the circuit court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2014State v. Robinson, 2009 WI App 97, ¶ 9 , 320 Wis. 2d 689 , 770 N.W.2d 721 . 2014State v. Robinson, 2009 WI App 97, ¶ 9 , 320 Wis. 2d 689 , 770 N.W.2d 721 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Transport Oil, Inc. v. Cummings
green
2 sentences1978The companies contend that under the rule of Transport Oil v. Cummings, 54 Wis.2d 256 , 195 N.W.2d 649 (1972), D.I.L.H.R.’s ultimate findings must be supported by basic findings. 1 Transport Oil, supra was an unem *486 ployment compensation case and the issue was whether Cummings was an employee within the meaning of sec. 108.02(8), Stats. 2 The statute required a two step analysis, “The first step is to decide whether a person falls within the purview of par. (a): That he is an ‘individual who is or has been performing services for an employing unit, in an employment.’ If the person meets the 1978The companies contend that under the rule of Transport Oil v. Cummings, 54 Wis.2d 256 , 195 N.W.2d 649 (1972), D.I.L.H.R.’s ultimate findings must be supported by basic findings. 1 Transport Oil, supra was an unem *486 ployment compensation case and the issue was whether Cummings was an employee within the meaning of sec. 108.02(8), Stats. 2 The statute required a two step analysis, “The first step is to decide whether a person falls within the purview of par. (a): That he is an ‘individual who is or has been performing services for an employing unit, in an employment.’ If the person meets the | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.