Legal Opinion

State v. Bucheger

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided March 1, 1989No. 88-0815, 88-0816, 88-0817, 88-0818PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtScott, C.J.

These consolidated appeals raise the sole question of whether a violation of Wis. Adm. Code sec. NR 10.12(1)(h) requires proof that the hunter knew or should have known that a hunted area was baited. We conclude that a minimal level of scienter — knew or should have known — is required. Because the trial court did not make findings as to whether any of the defendants should have known that the area was baited, we reverse and remand.

We adopt the facts as stated by the trial court in its decision from the bench. The four defendants were hunting migratory birds at the proper time and with the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. CollovaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  2. United States v. Louis Delahoussaye, David Lemoyne Knerien and Robert Lee RichardCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
  3. United States v. ChandlerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1985
  4. United States v. CatlettCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
  5. Grogan v. Public Service CommissionCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1982

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Envirologix Corp. v. City of WaukeshaCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1995
  2. Johnnie Coleman v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2019
  3. State v. Poly-America, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1991
  4. State v. FloodCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1995
  5. State v. HortonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1989

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API