Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Stann v. Waukesha Countygreen2 sentences1999In Stann v. Waukesha County, 161 Wis. 2d 808, 818 , 468 N.W.2d 775 (Ct. App. 1991), the court concluded that Scarpaci's rule extends no further than the medical setting. ¶ 37. 1999In Stann v. Waukesha County, 161 Wis. 2d 808, 818 , 468 N.W.2d 775 (Ct. App. 1991), the court concluded that Scarpaci's rule extends no further than the medical setting. ¶ 37. | 2 | 3 |
Bauder v. Delavan-Darien School Districtgreen2 sentences1998Dist., 207 Wis. 2d 310, 317 , 558 N.W.2d 881, 883 (Ct. App. 1996) ("[T]his court has limited the Scarpaci exception to cases involving medical discretion."); Stann v. Waukesha County, 161 Wis. 2d 808, 818 , 468 N.W.2d 775, 779 (Ct. App. 1991). 1998Dist., 207 Wis. 2d 310, 317 , 558 N.W.2d 881, 883 (Ct. App. 1996) ("[T]his court has limited the Scarpaci exception to cases involving medical discretion."); Stann v. Waukesha County, 161 Wis. 2d 808, 818 , 468 N.W.2d 775, 779 (Ct. App. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kierstyn v. Racine Unified School District
green
2 sentences2000Dist., 228 Wis. 2d 81, 90-97 , 596 N.W.2d 417 (1999), we noted that immunity does not apply to the performance of: (1) ministerial duties; (2) duties to address a "known danger;" (3) actions involving medical discretion (the Scarpaci rule); and (4) actions that are "malicious, willful, and intentional." The only exception advanced by Willow Creek in the present case is the performance of a ministerial duty, and therefore we need not address the remaining three exceptions to immunity under Wis. Stat. § 893.80 (4). ¶ 27. 2000Dist., 228 Wis. 2d 81, 90-97 , 596 N.W.2d 417 (1999), we noted that immunity does not apply to the performance of: (1) ministerial duties; (2) duties to address a "known danger;" (3) actions involving medical discretion (the Scarpaci rule); and (4) actions that are "malicious, willful, and intentional." The only exception advanced by Willow Creek in the present case is the performance of a ministerial duty, and therefore we need not address the remaining three exceptions to immunity under Wis. Stat. § 893.80 (4). ¶ 27. | 2 | 2000–2007 |
Lister v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
green
2 sentences2000A ministerial act, in contrast to an immune discretionary act, involves a duty that "is absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the performance of a specific task when the law imposes, prescribes and defines the time, mode and occasion for its performance with such certainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion." C.L. v. Olson, 143 Wis. 2d 701, 711-12 , 422 N.W.2d 614 (1988) (quoting Lister v. Board of Regents, 72 Wis. 2d 282, 301 , 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976)). ¶ 28. 2000A ministerial act, in contrast to an immune discretionary act, involves a duty that "is absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the performance of a specific task when the law imposes, prescribes and defines the time, mode and occasion for its performance with such certainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion." C.L. v. Olson, 143 Wis. 2d 701, 711-12 , 422 N.W.2d 614 (1988) (quoting Lister v. Board of Regents, 72 Wis. 2d 282, 301 , 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976)). ¶ 28. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
C.L. v. Olson
green
2 sentences2000A ministerial act, in contrast to an immune discretionary act, involves a duty that "is absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the performance of a specific task when the law imposes, prescribes and defines the time, mode and occasion for its performance with such certainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion." C.L. v. Olson, 143 Wis. 2d 701, 711-12 , 422 N.W.2d 614 (1988) (quoting Lister v. Board of Regents, 72 Wis. 2d 282, 301 , 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976)). ¶ 28. 2000A ministerial act, in contrast to an immune discretionary act, involves a duty that "is absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the performance of a specific task when the law imposes, prescribes and defines the time, mode and occasion for its performance with such certainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion." C.L. v. Olson, 143 Wis. 2d 701, 711-12 , 422 N.W.2d 614 (1988) (quoting Lister v. Board of Regents, 72 Wis. 2d 282, 301 , 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976)). ¶ 28. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.