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.
38 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pension Management, Inc. v. DuRosegreen2 sentences1982In Tooley we stated the general rule that a justiciable controversy is “a controversy in which a claim of right is *365 asserted by the plaintiffs against the defendants who have an interest in contesting it.” 77 Wis. 2d at 434 ; Accord Pension Management, Inc. v. DuRose, 58 Wis. 2d at 128 ; State ex rel. 1973The fact that a student has been determined to be a nonresident for tuition purposes for one semester does not mean that he has to be so classified forever and regardless of any subsequent changes in his circumstances. *492 In Pension Management, Inc. v. DuRose (1973), 58 Wis. 2d 122, 127, 128 , 205 N. W. 2d 553 , the four requirements necessary before a court will entertain a declaratory judgment were again reiterated: “This court long ago adopted Professor Borchard’s four conditions precedent for the proper maintenance of a declaratory judgment action: “‘(1) There must exist a justiciable co | 3 | 3 |
Loy v. Bundersongreen2 sentences2024A controversy is justiciable when four conditions are met: (1) “A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it”; (2) “The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse”; (3) “The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy—that is to say, a legally protectable interest”; and (4) “The issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination.” Fabick v. Evers, 2021 WI 28, ¶9 , 396 Wis. 2d 231 , 956 N.W.2d 856 (quoting Loy, 107 Wis. 2d at 410 ). 2021A controversy is justiciable when four conditions are met: (1) "A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it"; (2) "The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse"; (3) "The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy——that is to say, a legally protectable interest"; and (4) "The issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination." Id. at 410 ; see also Milwaukee Dist. | 2 | 17 |
Tooley v. O'CONNELLgreen2 sentences2020We said in Tooley v. O'Connell that a declaration of rights is available only if the plaintiff satisfies the following four conditions: (1) There must exist a justiciable controversy that is to say, a controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. (3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy that is to say, a legally protectible interest. (4) The issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination . . . . 7 2020We said in Tooley v. O'Connell that a declaration of rights is available only if the plaintiff satisfies the following four conditions: (1) There must exist a justiciable controversy that is to say, a controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. (3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy that is to say, a legally protectible interest. (4) The issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination . . . . 7 | 1 | 4 |
Olson v. Town of Cottage Grovegreen2 sentences2016See id. 2016See Olson v. Town of Cottage Grove, 2008 WI 51, ¶ 29 , 309 Wis. 2d 365 , 749 N.W.2d 211 . | 1 | 1 |
Slawek v. Strohgreen2 sentences2003The court then went on to state that a justiciable controversy is defined by four factors: Id. at 410 (internal quotations omitted); see also Slawek v. Stroh, 62 Wis. 2d 295, 306 , 215 N.W.2d 9 (1974). (1) A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. (3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy — that is to say, a legally protectible interest. (4) The issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination. 2003The court then went on to state that a justiciable controversy is defined by four factors: Id. at 410 (internal quotations omitted); see also Slawek v. Stroh, 62 Wis. 2d 295, 306 , 215 N.W.2d 9 (1974). (1) A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. (3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy — that is to say, a legally protectible interest. (4) The issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. La Follette v. Dammann
green
2 sentences1982La Follette v. Dammann, 220 Wis. 17, 22 , 264 N.W. 627 (1936): “The requisite precedent facts or conditions which the courts generally hold must exist in order that declaratory relief may be obtained may be summarized as follows: “(1) There must exist a justiciable controversy — that is to say, a controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. “(2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. “(3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy — that is to say, a legally protectible 1982La Follette v. Dammann, 220 Wis. 17, 22 , 264 N.W. 627 (1936): “The requisite precedent facts or conditions which the courts generally hold must exist in order that declaratory relief may be obtained may be summarized as follows: “(1) There must exist a justiciable controversy — that is to say, a controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. “(2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. “(3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy — that is to say, a legally protectible | 7 | 1953–1983 |
Milwaukee District Council 48 v. Milwaukee County
green
2 sentences2018Council 48 v. Milwaukee Cty. , 2001 WI 65 , ¶ 37, 244 Wis. 2d 333 , 627 N.W.2d 866 ("A declaratory judgment is fitting when a controversy is justiciable."). ¶ 96 We have previously said that an issue is justiciable, for purposes of declaratory judgment actions, when there is: (1) A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. (3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy-that is to say, a legally protectible interest. (4) The i 2018Council 48 v. Milwaukee Cty. , 2001 WI 65 , ¶ 37, 244 Wis. 2d 333 , 627 N.W.2d 866 ("A declaratory judgment is fitting when a controversy is justiciable."). ¶ 96 We have previously said that an issue is justiciable, for purposes of declaratory judgment actions, when there is: (1) A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. (3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy-that is to say, a legally protectible interest. (4) The i | 3 | 2018–2021 |
Chenequa Land Conservancy, Inc. v. Village of Hartland
green
2 sentences2005In Chenequa Land Conservancy, Inc. v. Village of Hartland, 2004 WI App 144, 275 Wis. 2d 533 , 685 N.W.2d 573 , we explained the requirements for maintaining an action for declaratory judgment: In order to maintain an action for declaratory judgment, there must be a justiciable controversy, which exists when these requirements are met: *668 (1) A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. (3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the cont 2005In Chenequa Land Conservancy, Inc. v. Village of Hartland, 2004 WI App 144, 275 Wis. 2d 533 , 685 N.W.2d 573 , we explained the requirements for maintaining an action for declaratory judgment: In order to maintain an action for declaratory judgment, there must be a justiciable controversy, which exists when these requirements are met: *668 (1) A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. (3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the cont | 3 | 2005–2013 |
Miller Brands-Milwaukee, Inc. v. Case
green
2 sentences2001In Miller Brands-Milwaukee, Inc. v. Case, 162 Wis. 2d 684 , 470 N.W.2d 290 (1991), our supreme court explained: The facts or conditions which must exist in order for a court to grant declaratory relief are as follows: There must exist a justiciable controversy - that is to say: (1) A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. (3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy - that is to say, a legally protectible [sic] interest. 2001In Miller Brands-Milwaukee, Inc. v. Case, 162 Wis. 2d 684 , 470 N.W.2d 290 (1991), our supreme court explained: The facts or conditions which must exist in order for a court to grant declaratory relief are as follows: There must exist a justiciable controversy - that is to say: (1) A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. (3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy - that is to say, a legally protectible [sic] interest. | 3 | 2001–2004 |
Lake Country Racquet & Athletic Club, Inc. v. Village of Hartland
green
1 sentence2026Id. (citation omitted). ¶18 Whether a party has standing to bring a declaratory judgment action is generally analyzed under the third factor. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Olson v. Farrar
green
2 sentences2024Whether to grant such a “judgment is addressed to the circuit 20 No. 2021AP1525 court’s discretion.” Olson v. Farrar, 2012 WI 3, ¶24 , 338 Wis. 2d 215 , 809 N.W.2d 1 . ¶37 As already discussed, Halter has a legally protectable right, as all students of WIAA member schools do, to have WIAA eligibility and appeal rules applied to him in a fair, reasonable, and nonarbitrary manner. 2024Whether to grant such a “judgment is addressed to the circuit 20 No. 2021AP1525 court’s discretion.” Olson v. Farrar, 2012 WI 3, ¶24 , 338 Wis. 2d 215 , 809 N.W.2d 1 . ¶37 As already discussed, Halter has a legally protectable right, as all students of WIAA member schools do, to have WIAA eligibility and appeal rules applied to him in a fair, reasonable, and nonarbitrary manner. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Jere Fabick v. Tony Evers
green
2 sentences2024A controversy is justiciable when four conditions are met: (1) “A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it”; (2) “The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse”; (3) “The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy—that is to say, a legally protectable interest”; and (4) “The issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination.” Fabick v. Evers, 2021 WI 28, ¶9 , 396 Wis. 2d 231 , 956 N.W.2d 856 (quoting Loy, 107 Wis. 2d at 410 ). 2024A controversy is justiciable when four conditions are met: (1) “A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it”; (2) “The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse”; (3) “The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy—that is to say, a legally protectable interest”; and (4) “The issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination.” Fabick v. Evers, 2021 WI 28, ¶9 , 396 Wis. 2d 231 , 956 N.W.2d 856 (quoting Loy, 107 Wis. 2d at 410 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Burbank Grease Services, LLC v. Sokolowski
green
2 sentences2020That does not state a legal claim [based upon] Burbank Grease Services, LLC v. Sokolowski, 2006 WI 103 , 294 Wis. 2d 274 , 717 N.W.2d 781 . ¶12 Sanimax moved to dismiss the amended counterclaim. 2020That does not state a legal claim [based upon] Burbank Grease Services, LLC v. Sokolowski, 2006 WI 103 , 294 Wis. 2d 274 , 717 N.W.2d 781 . ¶12 Sanimax moved to dismiss the amended counterclaim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Georgiades v. Di Ferrante
green
1 sentence2013Cf. Georgiades v. Di Ferrante, 871 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. App. 1994) (determination of whether common law marriage existed between parties); Henry v. Henry, 106 N.W.2d 570 (Mich. 1960) (wife's challenge to whether husband's Nevada divorce was valid). 31 No. 2011AP1176 & 2011AP1177 (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. (3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy——that is to say, a legally protect[a]ble interest. (4) The issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Henry v. Henry
green
1 sentence2013Cf. Georgiades v. Di Ferrante, 871 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. App. 1994) (determination of whether common law marriage existed between parties); Henry v. Henry, 106 N.W.2d 570 (Mich. 1960) (wife's challenge to whether husband's Nevada divorce was valid). 31 No. 2011AP1176 & 2011AP1177 (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. (3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy——that is to say, a legally protect[a]ble interest. (4) The issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
City of Madison v. Town of Fitchburg
green
2 sentences2002City of Madison v. Town of Fitchburg, 112 Wis. 2d 224, 228 , 332 N.W.2d 782 (1983) (citation omitted). 2002City of Madison v. Town of Fitchburg, 112 Wis. 2d 224, 228 , 332 N.W.2d 782 (1983) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Putnam v. Time Warner Cable of Southeastern Wisconsin, Ltd. Partnership
green
2 sentences2002Putnam v. Time Warner Cable, 2002 WI 108, ¶ 41 , 255 Wis. 2d 457 , 649 N.W.2d 626 . 2002Putnam v. Time Warner Cable, 2002 WI 108, ¶ 41 , 255 Wis. 2d 457 , 649 N.W.2d 626 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Sipl v. Sentry Indemnity Co.
green
2 sentences2000Co., 146 Wis. 2d 459, 464 , 431 N.W.2d 685 (Ct. App. 1988), in order for declaratory relief to be granted: (1) there must be a controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it; (2) that controversy must be between parties whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legally protectible interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination. 3 Wisconsin courts have imparted a similar purpose to exhaustion requirements. 2000Co., 146 Wis. 2d 459, 464 , 431 N.W.2d 685 (Ct. App. 1988), in order for declaratory relief to be granted: (1) there must be a controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it; (2) that controversy must be between parties whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legally protectible interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination. 3 Wisconsin courts have imparted a similar purpose to exhaustion requirements. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Klaus v. Vander Heyden
green
2 sentences1983In order to properly maintain a declaratory judgment action, “ ‘[tjhere must exist a justiciable controversy— that is to say: “ ‘(1) A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. “ ‘ (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. “ £(3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy — that is to say, a legally protectible interest. “ ‘ (4) The issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination.’ ” Loy v. Bunderson, 107 Wis. 2d 400, 410 , 320 N.W.2d 175 (1 1983In order to properly maintain a declaratory judgment action, “ ‘[tjhere must exist a justiciable controversy— that is to say: “ ‘(1) A controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. “ ‘ (2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. “ £(3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy — that is to say, a legally protectible interest. “ ‘ (4) The issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination.’ ” Loy v. Bunderson, 107 Wis. 2d 400, 410 , 320 N.W.2d 175 (1 | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.