witness list requirement (Wisconsin) · Go Syfert
← Wisconsin issues

witness list requirement in Wisconsin

6 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2011 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Estate of Hegarty v. Beauchainegreen
wisctapp · 2006 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2010–2011
2 sentences

2011To conclude otherwise would "entirely defeat[] the very purpose of the witness list requirement." See Estate of Hegarty v. Beauchaine, 2006 WI App 248, ¶ 188 , 297 Wis. 2d 70 , 727 N.W.2d 857 . ¶ 63.

2011To conclude otherwise would "entirely defeat[] the very purpose of the witness list requirement." See Estate of Hegarty v. Beauchaine, 2006 WI App 248, ¶ 188 , 297 Wis. 2d 70 , 727 N.W.2d 857 . ¶ 63.

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Gallegos v. State green
nev · 1968
2 sentences

1978App.2d 102 , 259 N.E.2d 357 (1970); Gallegos v. State, 84 Nev. 608 , 446 Pac.2d 656 (1968), or by recessing for a period sufficient to allow counsel to interview the witness ....

1978App.2d 102 , 259 N.E.2d 357 (1970); Gallegos v. State, 84 Nev. 608 , 446 Pac.2d 656 (1968), or by recessing for a period sufficient to allow counsel to interview the witness ....

31973–1978
People v. White neutral
illappct · 1970
2 sentences

1978The court may in appropriate cases grant the opposing party a recess or a continuance.” “We point out when an error is claimed amounting to noncompliance with or abuse of the witness-list requirement, the error or abuse may in some cases be cured by the court granting the other party a continuance so he can adequately prepare for trial, People v. White, 123 Ill.

1975We point out when an error is claimed amounting to noncompliance with or abuse of the witness-list requirement, the error or abuse may in some cases be cured by the court granting the other party a continuance so he can adequately prepare for trial, People v. White (1970), 123 Ill.

31973–1978
Tucker v. State green
wis · 1978
2 sentences

1984This court has stated that “when an error is claimed amounting to noncompliance with or abuse of the witness-list requirement [under sec. 971.23(1)], the error or abuse may in some cases be cured by the court granting the other party a continuance so he can adequately prepare for trial.” Tucker v. State, 84 Wis. 2d 630, 640 , 267 N.W.2d 630 (1978); (quoting Irby v. State, 60 Wis. 2d 311, 321 , 210 N.W.2d 755 (1973)).

1984This court has stated that “when an error is claimed amounting to noncompliance with or abuse of the witness-list requirement [under sec. 971.23(1)], the error or abuse may in some cases be cured by the court granting the other party a continuance so he can adequately prepare for trial.” Tucker v. State, 84 Wis. 2d 630, 640 , 267 N.W.2d 630 (1978); (quoting Irby v. State, 60 Wis. 2d 311, 321 , 210 N.W.2d 755 (1973)).

11984–1984
Irby v. State green
wis · 1973
2 sentences

1984This court has stated that “when an error is claimed amounting to noncompliance with or abuse of the witness-list requirement [under sec. 971.23(1)], the error or abuse may in some cases be cured by the court granting the other party a continuance so he can adequately prepare for trial.” Tucker v. State, 84 Wis. 2d 630, 640 , 267 N.W.2d 630 (1978); (quoting Irby v. State, 60 Wis. 2d 311, 321 , 210 N.W.2d 755 (1973)).

1984This court has stated that “when an error is claimed amounting to noncompliance with or abuse of the witness-list requirement [under sec. 971.23(1)], the error or abuse may in some cases be cured by the court granting the other party a continuance so he can adequately prepare for trial.” Tucker v. State, 84 Wis. 2d 630, 640 , 267 N.W.2d 630 (1978); (quoting Irby v. State, 60 Wis. 2d 311, 321 , 210 N.W.2d 755 (1973)).

11984–1984

Where else courts name it

GA 18 (1998–2026) WI 6 (1973–2011) TX 3 (2010–2010) OH 3 (1999–2025) IA 2 (2009–2009)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check