State v. Hess

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining the language in Blaisdell that intent to defraud is required for the criminal offense
• explaining the language in Blaisdell that intent to defraud is required for the criminal offense
• “The only difference between a civil and a criminal action for theft by contractor is that for a criminal conviction the state has an additional burden of proving that defendant acted with wrongful intent beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Bembenek
  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin· 1983-02-14· cited 28×
• Tri-Tech Corp. of America v. Americomp Services, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin· 2001-07-18· cited 2×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Lofton v. State
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 1978-06-06· cited 31×
• State v. Pruitt
  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin· 1980-01-16· cited 26×
• State v. Wolter
  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin· 1978-09-07· cited 23×
• State v. Blaisdell
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 1978-10-03· cited 18×
• State v. Sirisun
  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin· 1979-04-06· cited 17×