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

Establishing Standards for Expert Testimony in Hospital Negligence Cases: CRAMER v. THEDA CLARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Establishing Standards for Expert Testimony in Hospital Negligence Cases: CRAMER v. THEDA CLARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Date: Dec 3, 1969
Establishing Standards for Expert Testimony in Hospital Negligence Cases: CRAMER v. THEDA CLARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Introduction CRAMER v. THEDA CLARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL is a pivotal case decided by the...
Mandatory Compliance with Rule 11 for Guilty Plea Withdrawals: Insights from ERNST v. STATE

Mandatory Compliance with Rule 11 for Guilty Plea Withdrawals: Insights from ERNST v. STATE

Date: Oct 1, 1969
Mandatory Compliance with Rule 11 for Guilty Plea Withdrawals: Insights from ERNST v. STATE Introduction ERNST v. STATE, 43 Wis. 2d 661 (1969), adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin,...
Admissibility of Post-Offense Evidence to Establish Intent: State v. Hutnik

Admissibility of Post-Offense Evidence to Establish Intent: State v. Hutnik

Date: Jun 29, 1968
Admissibility of Post-Offense Evidence to Establish Intent: State v. Hutnik Introduction State v. Hutnik is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on June 28, 1968. The case...
Establishing Criteria for Granting a New Trial in the Interest of Justice: Loomans v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co.

Establishing Criteria for Granting a New Trial in the Interest of Justice: Loomans v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co.

Date: May 8, 1968
Establishing Criteria for Granting a New Trial in the Interest of Justice: Loomans v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. Introduction The case of Loomans and another v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Company...
Strict Liability in Products Liability Without Privity: Dippel v. Sciano Establishes New Precedent in Wisconsin

Strict Liability in Products Liability Without Privity: Dippel v. Sciano Establishes New Precedent in Wisconsin

Date: Dec 30, 1967
Strict Liability in Products Liability Without Privity: Dippel v. Sciano Establishes New Precedent in Wisconsin Introduction Dippel v. Sciano and others, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin...
Establishing Ordinary Negligence Standard in Host-Guest Automobile Tort Cases: Heath v. Zellmer

Establishing Ordinary Negligence Standard in Host-Guest Automobile Tort Cases: Heath v. Zellmer

Date: Jul 1, 1967
Establishing Ordinary Negligence Standard in Host-Guest Automobile Tort Cases: Heath v. Zellmer Introduction Heath and others v. Zellmer and another, Defendants and Respondents: Meyer and another,...
Effective Assistance of Counsel and the Withdrawal of Guilty Pleas: Insights from State v. Reppin

Effective Assistance of Counsel and the Withdrawal of Guilty Pleas: Insights from State v. Reppin

Date: Jun 7, 1967
Effective Assistance of Counsel and the Withdrawal of Guilty Pleas: Insights from State v. Reppin Introduction The case of State v. Reppin, decided by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on June 6, 1967,...
Balancing Relevance and Prejudice in Admitting Prior-Crime Evidence: An Analysis of Whitty v. State

Balancing Relevance and Prejudice in Admitting Prior-Crime Evidence: An Analysis of Whitty v. State

Date: Apr 12, 1967
Balancing Relevance and Prejudice in Admitting Prior-Crime Evidence: An Analysis of Whitty v. State Introduction Whitty v. State is a landmark case adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in...
Comparative Negligence and Seat Belt Usage in Multi-Party Accident Liability: Analysis of BENTZLER v. BRAUN

Comparative Negligence and Seat Belt Usage in Multi-Party Accident Liability: Analysis of BENTZLER v. BRAUN

Date: Apr 12, 1967
Comparative Negligence and Seat Belt Usage in Multi-Party Accident Liability: Analysis of BENTZLER v. BRAUN Introduction The case of BENTZLER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRAUN and others,...
Clarifying Material Misrepresentation in Insurance Applications: Southard v. Occidental Life Insurance Co.

Clarifying Material Misrepresentation in Insurance Applications: Southard v. Occidental Life Insurance Co.

Date: Jun 8, 1966
Clarifying Material Misrepresentation in Insurance Applications: Southard v. Occidental Life Insurance Co. Introduction SOUTHARD v. OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, 31 Wis. 2d 351...
Affirmation of Armed Robbery Convictions in LOCK v. STATE and LOWRY v. STATE

Affirmation of Armed Robbery Convictions in LOCK v. STATE and LOWRY v. STATE

Date: May 14, 1966
Affirmation of Armed Robbery Convictions in LOCK v. STATE and LOWRY v. STATE Introduction The cases of Lock v. State and Lowry v. State (31 Wis. 2d 110), adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin...
Establishing Reasonable Compensation for Court-Appointed Counsel: Insights from State v. DeKeyser

Establishing Reasonable Compensation for Court-Appointed Counsel: Insights from State v. DeKeyser

Date: Dec 1, 1965
Establishing Reasonable Compensation for Court-Appointed Counsel: Insights from State v. DeKeyser, 29 Wis. 2d 132 Introduction The case of State v. DeKeyser, decided by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin...
Sufficiency of Evidence and Credibility Determination in Criminal Bench Trials: Analysis of Gauthier v. State (1965)

Sufficiency of Evidence and Credibility Determination in Criminal Bench Trials: Analysis of Gauthier v. State (1965)

Date: Oct 6, 1965
Sufficiency of Evidence and Credibility Determination in Criminal Bench Trials: Analysis of Gauthier v. State (1965) Introduction Gauthier v. State is a pivotal 1965 decision by the Supreme Court of...
Goodchild v. Burke: Counsel’s Strategic Waiver of Constitutional Claims in Habeas Corpus Petitions

Goodchild v. Burke: Counsel’s Strategic Waiver of Constitutional Claims in Habeas Corpus Petitions

Date: Mar 31, 1965
Goodchild v. Burke: Counsel’s Strategic Waiver of Constitutional Claims in Habeas Corpus Petitions Introduction State ex rel. Goodchild v. Burke is a significant case adjudicated by the Supreme Court...
Supreme Court of Wisconsin Abandons Lex Loci Delicti in Choosing Applicable Law for Negligence Cases

Supreme Court of Wisconsin Abandons Lex Loci Delicti in Choosing Applicable Law for Negligence Cases

Date: Mar 6, 1965
Supreme Court of Wisconsin Abandons Lex Loci Delicti in Choosing Applicable Law for Negligence Cases Introduction The case of Wilcox v. Wilcox and American Family Mutual Insurance Company represents...
Recognition of Promissory Estoppel in Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.

Recognition of Promissory Estoppel in Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.

Date: Mar 3, 1965
Recognition of Promissory Estoppel in Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. Introduction The case of Hoffman and wife v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. [Two appeals.] addressed significant issues regarding the...
Keplin v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co.: Upholding Circuit Court Discretion in Case Consolidation and Evidence Admissibility

Keplin v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co.: Upholding Circuit Court Discretion in Case Consolidation and Evidence Admissibility

Date: Jul 1, 1964
Keplin v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co.: Upholding Circuit Court Discretion in Case Consolidation and Evidence Admissibility Introduction Keplin v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company and Others is a...
State v. Nutley et al.: Establishing Standards for Jury Array Constitution and Consolidated Trials in First-Degree Murder Cases

State v. Nutley et al.: Establishing Standards for Jury Array Constitution and Consolidated Trials in First-Degree Murder Cases

Date: Jul 1, 1964
State v. Nutley et al.: Establishing Standards for Jury Array Constitution and Consolidated Trials in First-Degree Murder Cases Introduction In State v. Nutley, Nickl, and Welter (Supreme Court of...
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Requires Extreme and Outrageous Conduct: ALSTEEN v. GEHL

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Requires Extreme and Outrageous Conduct: ALSTEEN v. GEHL

Date: Nov 2, 1963
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Requires Extreme and Outrageous Conduct: ALSTEEN v. GEHL Introduction The case of Alsteen v. Gehl and another (21 Wis. 2d 349), adjudicated by the Supreme...
Barred Contribution Rights through Partial Satisfaction in Tort Settlements: Pierringer v. Hoger

Barred Contribution Rights through Partial Satisfaction in Tort Settlements: Pierringer v. Hoger

Date: Oct 30, 1963
Barred Contribution Rights through Partial Satisfaction in Tort Settlements: Pierringer v. Hoger Introduction Pierringer v. Hoger and Others is a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of...
Previous   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