¶1¶ 47. {concurring). Although the concurrence presents a fairly persuasive case that the appellate standard of review should be independent of the decisions of a circuit court or court of appeals yet benefiting from the analyses of those courts, I do not join it. The issue has not been adequately briefed. In fact, both parties argue that the standard should be as stated in the majority opinion. At oral argument, the defendant discussed the standard of review for five minutes, arguing for a clearly erroneous standard, and stated that the State agreed with that position. In response, the State said nothing more than that it also advocated a clearly erroneous standard of review. Inasmuch as neither party supports the conclusion of the concurring opinion, this is not the appropriate case to depart from our precedent. Far better to wait until the issue is squarely joined and argued by two parties in adversarial position. Accordingly, I join the majority.
207 Wis. 2d 214
558 N.W.2d 626
State v. Garfoot
Decided February 4, 1997
Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1997-02-04
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“essentially a clearly erroneous standard of review.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Marquardt
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1997-02-04
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably State v. Hajicek (2001), State v. Imani (2010)
31 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →