Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments

Wisconsin Case Commentaries

Campaign Criticism and Judicial Recusal: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Gableman and the Limits of “Appearance of Bias” in Wisconsin

Campaign Criticism and Judicial Recusal: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Gableman and the Limits of “Appearance of Bias” in Wisconsin

Date: Dec 6, 2025
Campaign Criticism and Judicial Recusal: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael J. Gableman and the Limits of “Appearance of Bias” in Wisconsin I. Introduction This commentary analyzes the December...
Broadening “Apportionment” in Wisconsin: Three‑Judge Panels for All Congressional and Legislative Redistricting Challenges After Bothfeld v. WEC

Broadening “Apportionment” in Wisconsin: Three‑Judge Panels for All Congressional and Legislative Redistricting Challenges After Bothfeld v. WEC

Date: Nov 30, 2025
Broadening “Apportionment” in Wisconsin: Three‑Judge Panels for All Congressional and Legislative Redistricting Challenges After Bothfeld v. Wisconsin Elections Commission I. Introduction The...
Broad Construction of “Apportionment” and Mandatory Three‑Judge Panels in Wisconsin Redistricting Challenges: Commentary on Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy v. WEC

Broad Construction of “Apportionment” and Mandatory Three‑Judge Panels in Wisconsin Redistricting Challenges: Commentary on Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy v. WEC

Date: Nov 30, 2025
Broad Construction of “Apportionment” and Mandatory Three‑Judge Panels in Wisconsin Redistricting Challenges Commentary on Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy v. Wisconsin Elections Commission,...
Identical Discipline Under SCR 22.22: Minnesota Disbarment Equals Wisconsin Revocation, Not Suspension

Identical Discipline Under SCR 22.22: Minnesota Disbarment Equals Wisconsin Revocation, Not Suspension

Date: Nov 15, 2025
Identical Discipline Under SCR 22.22: Minnesota Disbarment Equals Wisconsin Revocation, Not Suspension Introduction In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael B. Padden, 2025 WI 47, the Wisconsin...
Reciprocal Discipline Clarified: Wisconsin Revocation Is the Identical Sanction to Minnesota Disbarment, Despite Reinstatement Differences

Reciprocal Discipline Clarified: Wisconsin Revocation Is the Identical Sanction to Minnesota Disbarment, Despite Reinstatement Differences

Date: Nov 15, 2025
Reciprocal Discipline Clarified: Wisconsin Revocation Is the Identical Sanction to Minnesota Disbarment, Despite Reinstatement Differences Introduction In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael B....
Reinstatement Is Not a Silo: Wisconsin Supreme Court Imposes an Affirmative Duty to Disclose Concurrent Discipline and Confirms the Expansive Scope of SCR 22.305 (Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steven D. Johnson, 2025 WI 45)

Reinstatement Is Not a Silo: Wisconsin Supreme Court Imposes an Affirmative Duty to Disclose Concurrent Discipline and Confirms the Expansive Scope of SCR 22.305 (Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steven D. Johnson, 2025 WI 45)

Date: Oct 13, 2025
Reinstatement Is Not a Silo: Wisconsin Supreme Court Imposes an Affirmative Duty to Disclose Concurrent Discipline and Confirms the Expansive Scope of SCR 22.305 Case: Office of Lawyer Regulation v....
“Reinstatement Is Not a Silo”: Wisconsin Supreme Court mandates disclosure of intervening discipline and reaffirms the far‑ranging scope of reinstatement inquiries under SCR 22.305, SCR 22.29(4), and SCR 22.40

“Reinstatement Is Not a Silo”: Wisconsin Supreme Court mandates disclosure of intervening discipline and reaffirms the far‑ranging scope of reinstatement inquiries under SCR 22.305, SCR 22.29(4), and SCR 22.40

Date: Oct 13, 2025
“Reinstatement Is Not a Silo”: Wisconsin Supreme Court mandates disclosure of intervening discipline and reaffirms the far‑ranging scope of reinstatement inquiries under SCR 22.305, SCR 22.29(4), and...
Tribal Bar Admission Is Not “Admission in a State, Territory, or D.C.” Under SCR 40.04(1); Exam-Eligibility Denials Are Reviewable Under the Court’s Supervisory Authority

Tribal Bar Admission Is Not “Admission in a State, Territory, or D.C.” Under SCR 40.04(1); Exam-Eligibility Denials Are Reviewable Under the Court’s Supervisory Authority

Date: Oct 10, 2025
Tribal Bar Admission Is Not “Admission in a State, Territory, or D.C.” Under SCR 40.04(1); Exam-Eligibility Denials Are Reviewable Under the Court’s Supervisory Authority Introduction In Joy Morris...
Gatekeeping the Three‑Judge Panel: Wisconsin Supreme Court Requires Threshold Showing that a Redistricting Suit Is an “Apportionment” Challenge Before § 751.035 Is Triggered

Gatekeeping the Three‑Judge Panel: Wisconsin Supreme Court Requires Threshold Showing that a Redistricting Suit Is an “Apportionment” Challenge Before § 751.035 Is Triggered

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Gatekeeping the Three‑Judge Panel: Wisconsin Supreme Court Requires Threshold Showing that a Redistricting Suit Is an “Apportionment” Challenge Before § 751.035 Is Triggered Introduction In a...
Gatekeeping Before Appointing Three‑Judge Redistricting Panels: Wisconsin Supreme Court to Decide What Counts as an “Apportionment” Challenge Under Wis. Stat. § 801.50(4m)

Gatekeeping Before Appointing Three‑Judge Redistricting Panels: Wisconsin Supreme Court to Decide What Counts as an “Apportionment” Challenge Under Wis. Stat. § 801.50(4m)

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Gatekeeping Before Appointing Three‑Judge Redistricting Panels: Wisconsin Supreme Court to Decide What Counts as an “Apportionment” Challenge Under Wis. Stat. § 801.50(4m) Introduction In Wisconsin...
Burkert: Two-Year Suspension and Full Restitution as a Condition to File for Reinstatement in Law‑Firm Fee Diversion Cases

Burkert: Two-Year Suspension and Full Restitution as a Condition to File for Reinstatement in Law‑Firm Fee Diversion Cases

Date: Sep 13, 2025
Burkert: Two-Year Suspension and Full Restitution as a Condition to File for Reinstatement in Law‑Firm Fee Diversion Cases Introduction In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Matthew V. Burkert, 2025 WI...
Complete Restitution as a Precondition to Reinstatement and a Two-Year Benchmark for Law‑Firm Fee Diversion: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Burkert (2025 WI 44)

Complete Restitution as a Precondition to Reinstatement and a Two-Year Benchmark for Law‑Firm Fee Diversion: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Burkert (2025 WI 44)

Date: Sep 13, 2025
Complete Restitution as a Precondition to Reinstatement and a Two-Year Benchmark for Law‑Firm Fee Diversion Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Matthew V. Burkert, 2025 WI 44 (Wisconsin Supreme Court,...
Default, Progressive Discipline, and Revocation: The Kovac Decision’s Reinforcement of Wisconsin’s Lawyer-Regulation Framework

Default, Progressive Discipline, and Revocation: The Kovac Decision’s Reinforcement of Wisconsin’s Lawyer-Regulation Framework

Date: Aug 19, 2025
Default, Progressive Discipline, and Revocation: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter J. Kovac and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s Latest Guidance on Attorney Misconduct 1. Introduction In Office of...
From Forgery to 30-Month Suspension: The Wisconsin Rule on Repeated Will-Witness Fraud Absent Broader Misconduct

From Forgery to 30-Month Suspension: The Wisconsin Rule on Repeated Will-Witness Fraud Absent Broader Misconduct

Date: Aug 19, 2025
From Forgery to 30-Month Suspension: The Wisconsin Rule on Repeated Will-Witness Fraud Absent Broader Misconduct Introduction In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John P. Buran, 2025 WI 40, the...
Progressive Discipline Re-Calibrated: Wisconsin Supreme Court Authorises Mid-Range (18-Month) Suspensions for Recidivist Attorney Misconduct

Progressive Discipline Re-Calibrated: Wisconsin Supreme Court Authorises Mid-Range (18-Month) Suspensions for Recidivist Attorney Misconduct

Date: Aug 19, 2025
Progressive Discipline Re-Calibrated: Wisconsin Supreme Court Authorises Mid-Range (18-Month) Suspensions for Recidivist Attorney Misconduct Introduction The decision in Office of Lawyer Regulation...
The Kovac Default Doctrine: When Serial Misconduct and Procedural Default Mandate Revocation in Wisconsin Attorney Discipline

The Kovac Default Doctrine: When Serial Misconduct and Procedural Default Mandate Revocation in Wisconsin Attorney Discipline

Date: Aug 16, 2025
The Kovac Default Doctrine: Serial Misconduct + Procedural Default = Mandatory Revocation in Wisconsin Introduction Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter J. Kovac, 2025 WI 41 is the latest and most...
“Beyond the Six-Month Benchmark” – The Malloy Standard for Progressive Escalation of Attorney Discipline in Wisconsin

“Beyond the Six-Month Benchmark” – The Malloy Standard for Progressive Escalation of Attorney Discipline in Wisconsin

Date: Aug 15, 2025
“Beyond the Six-Month Benchmark” – The Malloy Standard for Progressive Escalation of Attorney Discipline in Wisconsin 1. Introduction Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert T. Malloy, 2025 WI 39, is...
Forged Witness Signatures and the Threshold for Revocation: The Wisconsin
Supreme Court Establishes a 30-Month Suspension Standard

Forged Witness Signatures and the Threshold for Revocation: The Wisconsin Supreme Court Establishes a 30-Month Suspension Standard

Date: Aug 15, 2025
Forged Witness Signatures and the Threshold for Revocation: A Commentary on Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John P. Buran, 2025 WI 40 1. Introduction In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John P. Buran,...
“Consult First, Act Later” – Wisconsin Affirms the Attorney’s Duty to Communicate Directly with Adjudged-Incompetent Clients (Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas L. Frenn, 2025)

“Consult First, Act Later” – Wisconsin Affirms the Attorney’s Duty to Communicate Directly with Adjudged-Incompetent Clients (Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas L. Frenn, 2025)

Date: Aug 13, 2025
“Consult First, Act Later” – Wisconsin Affirms the Attorney’s Duty to Communicate Directly with Adjudged-Incompetent Clients (Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas L. Frenn, 2025 WI ___) Introduction...
Evers v. Marklein: Wisconsin Adopts the Chadha Standard— Legislative Vetoes of Administrative Rules Declared Unconstitutional

Evers v. Marklein: Wisconsin Adopts the Chadha Standard— Legislative Vetoes of Administrative Rules Declared Unconstitutional

Date: Jul 9, 2025
Evers v. Marklein: Wisconsin Adopts the Chadha Standard— Legislative Vetoes of Administrative Rules Declared Unconstitutional 1. Introduction In Evers v. Marklein, 2025 WI 36, the Supreme Court of...
Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert