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.
35 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1929–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp.green2 sentences1993In Michelle T., the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the definition of res judicata given by the United States Supreme Court in Lawlor : "[U]nder the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment 'on the merits' in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same cause of action." Id. at 694 n.13, 495 N.W.2d at 333 n.13 (quoting Lawlor, 349 U.S. at 326 ). 1993In Michelle T., the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the definition of res judicata given by the United States Supreme Court in Lawlor : "[U]nder the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment `on the merits' in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same cause of action." Id. at 694 n.13, 495 N.W2d at 333 n.13 (quoting Lawlor, 349 U.S. at 326 ). | 5 | 6 |
Northern States Power Co. v. Bughergreen2 sentences2005Co., 113 Wis. 2d *529 306, 310, 334 N.W.2d 883 (1983) ("On review of a determination as to whether the doctrine of res judicata applies, we are presented with a question of law." (citation omitted)). 11 In Wisconsin, the "term claim preclusion replace[d] res judicata; the term issue preclusion replace[d] collateral estoppel." Sopha, 230 Wis. 2d at 232 n.25 (citing N. States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 550 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995)). 2005Co., 113 Wis. 2d *529 306, 310, 334 N.W.2d 883 (1983) ("On review of a determination as to whether the doctrine of res judicata applies, we are presented with a question of law." (citation omitted)). 11 In Wisconsin, the "term claim preclusion replace[d] res judicata; the term issue preclusion replace[d] collateral estoppel." Sopha, 230 Wis. 2d at 232 n.25 (citing N. States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 550 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995)). | 3 | 4 |
Nunnemacher v. Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences1968See Will of Nunnemacher (1939), 230 Wis. 93 , 283 N. W. *19 326, and Rahr v. Wittmann (1911), 147 Wis. 195 , 132 N. W. 1107 . 1962See Will of Nunnemacher (1939), 230 Wis. 93 , 283 N. W. 326 , and Rahr v. Wittmann (1911), 147 Wis. 195 , 132 N. W. 1107 . | 2 | 2 |
Rahr v. Wittmanngreen2 sentences1968See Will of Nunnemacher (1939), 230 Wis. 93 , 283 N. W. *19 326, and Rahr v. Wittmann (1911), 147 Wis. 195 , 132 N. W. 1107 . 1968See Will of Nunnemacher (1939), 230 Wis. 93 , 283 N. W. *19 326, and Rahr v. Wittmann (1911), 147 Wis. 195 , 132 N. W. 1107 . | 2 | 2 |
Bliffert v. Bliffertgreen2 sentences1976Even in those cases where change of custody is sought after judgment, “the doctrine of res judicata is not to be applied to custody matters with the same strictness as to others.” Bliffert v. Bliffert, 14 Wis.2d 316, 323 , 111 N.W.2d 188, 192 (1961). 1 In custody matters the public interest in promoting the best interest of the child is always the dominant concern. 1976Even in those cases where change of custody is sought after judgment, “the doctrine of res judicata is not to be applied to custody matters with the same strictness as to others.” Bliffert v. Bliffert, 14 Wis.2d 316, 323 , 111 N.W.2d 188, 192 (1961). 1 In custody matters the public interest in promoting the best interest of the child is always the dominant concern. | 1 | 3 |
City of Fond Du Lac v. Department of Natural Resourcesgreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., City of Fond du Lac v. Department of Natural Resources, 45 Wis. 2d 620, 625 , 173 N.W.2d 605 (1970) ("It has long been established in this jurisdiction that the doctrine of res judicata has no application to the proceeding of an administrative agency such as the [DNR]."); Board of Regents v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 103 Wis. 2d 545, 552 , 309 N.W.2d 366 (Ct. App. 1981) ("Wisconsin rejects the application of the doctrine of res judicata to the proceedings of an administrative agency."). 1994See, e.g., City of Fond du Lac v. Department of Natural Resources, 45 Wis. 2d 620, 625 , 173 N.W.2d 605 (1970) ("It has long been established in this jurisdiction that the doctrine of res judicata has no application to the proceeding of an administrative agency such as the [DNR]."); Board of Regents v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 103 Wis. 2d 545, 552 , 309 N.W.2d 366 (Ct. App. 1981) ("Wisconsin rejects the application of the doctrine of res judicata to the proceedings of an administrative agency."). | 1 | 1 |
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Wisconsin Personnel Commissiongreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., City of Fond du Lac v. Department of Natural Resources, 45 Wis. 2d 620, 625 , 173 N.W.2d 605 (1970) ("It has long been established in this jurisdiction that the doctrine of res judicata has no application to the proceeding of an administrative agency such as the [DNR]."); Board of Regents v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 103 Wis. 2d 545, 552 , 309 N.W.2d 366 (Ct. App. 1981) ("Wisconsin rejects the application of the doctrine of res judicata to the proceedings of an administrative agency."). 1994See, e.g., City of Fond du Lac v. Department of Natural Resources, 45 Wis. 2d 620, 625 , 173 N.W.2d 605 (1970) ("It has long been established in this jurisdiction that the doctrine of res judicata has no application to the proceeding of an administrative agency such as the [DNR]."); Board of Regents v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 103 Wis. 2d 545, 552 , 309 N.W.2d 366 (Ct. App. 1981) ("Wisconsin rejects the application of the doctrine of res judicata to the proceedings of an administrative agency."). | 1 | 1 |
Bemis v. Chevron Research Co.green1 sentence1994Id. at 1085. | 1 | 1 |
Parks v. City of Madisongreen2 sentences1993Leimert's holding, that under the doctrine of res judicata, for an initial action to bar a subsequent action, there must be an identity of parties or their privies and an identity of causes of action or claims, was recently affirmed in Parks v. City of Madison, 171 Wis. 2d 730, 734-35 , 492 N.W.2d 365, 368 (Ct. App. 1992). 1993Leimert's holding, that under the doctrine of res judicata, for an initial action to bar a subsequent action, there must be an identity of parties or their privies and an identity of causes of action or claims, was recently affirmed in Parks v. City of Madison, 171 Wis. 2d 730, 734-35 , 492 N.W.2d 365, 368 (Ct. App. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Landess v. Schmidtgreen2 sentences1993Landess v. Schmidt, 115 Wis. 2d 186, 196-97 , 340 N.W.2d 213, 218 (Ct. App. 1983). 1993Landess v. Schmidt, 115 Wis. 2d 186, 196-97 , 340 N.W.2d 213, 218 (Ct. App. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Stuart v. Stuartgreen2 sentences1992Stuart v. Stuart, 140 Wis. 2d 455, 460 , 410 N.W.2d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 1987), aff'd, 143 Wis. 2d 347 , 421 N.W.2d 505 (1988). 1992Stuart v. Stuart, 140 Wis. 2d 455, 460 , 410 N.W.2d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 1987), aff'd, 143 Wis. 2d 347 , 421 N.W.2d 505 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Jantzen v. Bakergreen2 sentences1991We are also satisfied that there is an identity of parties between EMS-Wisconsin and EMS because they are in privity. " [T]he identity of parties requirement of res judicata is met where the two actions involve a closely-held corporation in one case [here, the arbitration proceedings] and its principal shareholder in the other [Manu-Tronics II]." Jantzen v. Baker, 131 Wis. 2d 507, 511 , 388 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Ct. App. 1986), and the principal shareholder actively participated in the first case. 1991We are also satisfied that there is an identity of parties between EMS-Wisconsin and EMS because they are in privity. " [T]he identity of parties requirement of res judicata is met where the two actions involve a closely-held corporation in one case [here, the arbitration proceedings] and its principal shareholder in the other [Manu-Tronics II]." Jantzen v. Baker, 131 Wis. 2d 507, 511 , 388 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Ct. App. 1986), and the principal shareholder actively participated in the first case. | 1 | 1 |
Harper Plastics, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corporationgreen1 sentence1985Harper Plastics, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 657 F.2d 939, 944-45 (7th Cir. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Thies v. MacDonaldgreen2 sentences1979She cites the court to Thies v. MacDonald, 51 Wis.2d 296, 301, 302 , 187 N.W.2d 186 (1971) which states: “Though the doctrine of res judicata is not applied in its usual strictness when the question involves custody or support because the interests of children are involved, King v. King, 25 Wis.2d 550 , 131 N.W.2d 357 (1964), policy still dictates that a decision made on a certain state of facts be given the effect of res judicata so long as that factual situation has not materially changed. 1979She cites the court to Thies v. MacDonald, 51 Wis.2d 296, 301, 302 , 187 N.W.2d 186 (1971) which states: “Though the doctrine of res judicata is not applied in its usual strictness when the question involves custody or support because the interests of children are involved, King v. King, 25 Wis.2d 550 , 131 N.W.2d 357 (1964), policy still dictates that a decision made on a certain state of facts be given the effect of res judicata so long as that factual situation has not materially changed. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Donohuegreen1 sentence1967See State v. Donohue (1960), 11 Wis. (2d) 517, 523, 105 N. W. (2d) 844 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DePratt v. West Bend Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2005Co., 113 Wis. 2d *529 306, 310, 334 N.W.2d 883 (1983) ("On review of a determination as to whether the doctrine of res judicata applies, we are presented with a question of law." (citation omitted)). 11 In Wisconsin, the "term claim preclusion replace[d] res judicata; the term issue preclusion replace[d] collateral estoppel." Sopha, 230 Wis. 2d at 232 n.25 (citing N. States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 550 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995)). 1987Under the doctrine of res judicata, "a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings.” DePratt, 113 Wis. 2d at 310 . | 3 | 1987–2005 |
King v. King
green
2 sentences1979She cites the court to Thies v. MacDonald, 51 Wis.2d 296, 301, 302 , 187 N.W.2d 186 (1971) which states: “Though the doctrine of res judicata is not applied in its usual strictness when the question involves custody or support because the interests of children are involved, King v. King, 25 Wis.2d 550 , 131 N.W.2d 357 (1964), policy still dictates that a decision made on a certain state of facts be given the effect of res judicata so long as that factual situation has not materially changed. 1979She cites the court to Thies v. MacDonald, 51 Wis.2d 296, 301, 302 , 187 N.W.2d 186 (1971) which states: “Though the doctrine of res judicata is not applied in its usual strictness when the question involves custody or support because the interests of children are involved, King v. King, 25 Wis.2d 550 , 131 N.W.2d 357 (1964), policy still dictates that a decision made on a certain state of facts be given the effect of res judicata so long as that factual situation has not materially changed. | 3 | 1970–1979 |
Chandler v. Chandler
green
2 sentences1971Miner v. Miner, supra; Bruun v. Bruun, supra. Though the doctrine of res judicata is not applied in its usual strictness when the question involves custody or *302 support because the interests of children are involved, King v. King (1964), 25 Wis. 2d 550 , 131 N. W. 2d 357 , policy still dictates that a decision made on a certain state of facts be given the effect of res judicata so long as that factual situation has not materially changed. 2 Chandler v. Chandler (1964), 25 Wis. 2d 587 , 131 N. W. 2d 336 . 1971Miner v. Miner, supra; Bruun v. Bruun, supra. Though the doctrine of res judicata is not applied in its usual strictness when the question involves custody or *302 support because the interests of children are involved, King v. King (1964), 25 Wis. 2d 550 , 131 N. W. 2d 357 , policy still dictates that a decision made on a certain state of facts be given the effect of res judicata so long as that factual situation has not materially changed. 2 Chandler v. Chandler (1964), 25 Wis. 2d 587 , 131 N. W. 2d 336 . | 2 | 1971–1979 |
Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
green
1 sentence2005Co., 113 Wis. 2d *529 306, 310, 334 N.W.2d 883 (1983) ("On review of a determination as to whether the doctrine of res judicata applies, we are presented with a question of law." (citation omitted)). 11 In Wisconsin, the "term claim preclusion replace[d] res judicata; the term issue preclusion replace[d] collateral estoppel." Sopha, 230 Wis. 2d at 232 n.25 (citing N. States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 550 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995)). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hammes v. First National Bank & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 359 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Dennis Anderson v. Gilberto Romero and Arthur Douglas
green
1 sentence1999Anderson, 72 F.3d at 525 . ¶ 44. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Klaus v. Vander Heyden
green
2 sentences1994The judgment does not extend to issues which were not raised in the pleadings." Klaus v. Vander Heyden, 106 Wis. 2d 353, 359-60 , 316 N.W.2d 664 (1982) (citing 50 C.J.S. 1994The judgment does not extend to issues which were not raised in the pleadings." Klaus v. Vander Heyden, 106 Wis. 2d 353, 359-60 , 316 N.W.2d 664 (1982) (citing 50 C.J.S. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Michelle T. Ex Rel. Sumpter v. Crozier
green
2 sentences1993In Michelle T., the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the definition of res judicata given by the United States Supreme Court in Lawlor : "[U]nder the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment 'on the merits' in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same cause of action." Id. at 694 n.13, 495 N.W.2d at 333 n.13 (quoting Lawlor, 349 U.S. at 326 ). 1993In Michelle T., the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the definition of res judicata given by the United States Supreme Court in Lawlor : "[U]nder the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment 'on the merits' in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same cause of action." Id. at 694 n.13, 495 N.W.2d at 333 n.13 (quoting Lawlor, 349 U.S. at 326 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Stuart v. Stuart
green
2 sentences1992Stuart v. Stuart, 140 Wis. 2d 455, 460 , 410 N.W.2d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 1987), aff'd, 143 Wis. 2d 347 , 421 N.W.2d 505 (1988). 1992Stuart v. Stuart, 140 Wis. 2d 455, 460 , 410 N.W.2d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 1987), aff'd, 143 Wis. 2d 347 , 421 N.W.2d 505 (1988). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Desotelle v. Continental Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences1987Desotelle, 136 Wis. 2d at 21 , 400 N.W.2d at 527 . 1987Desotelle, 136 Wis. 2d at 21 , 400 N.W.2d at 527 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
green
1 sentence1983Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, on the other hand, the second action is upon a different cause of action and the judgment in the prior suit precludes reliti-gation of issues actually litigated and necessary to the outcome of the first action. *62 Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 , 326 n. 5 (1979). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Leimert v. McCann
green
2 sentences1982Leimert v. McCann, 79 Wis. 2d 289, 294 , 255 N.W.2d 526 (1977). 1982Leimert v. McCann, 79 Wis. 2d 289, 294 , 255 N.W.2d 526 (1977). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Maguire v. Bolen
neutral
2 sentences1972However, since the propriety of an attachment must be determined by the condition of things, at the time the writ was issued —Maguire v. Bolen (1896), 94 Wis. 48, 53 , 68 N. W. 408—the trial court’s finding that appellant was entitled to the benefit of the homestead exemption related only to November *150 14, 1969, and not to July 25, 1970. 1972However, since the propriety of an attachment must be determined by the condition of things, at the time the writ was issued —Maguire v. Bolen (1896), 94 Wis. 48, 53 , 68 N. W. 408—the trial court’s finding that appellant was entitled to the benefit of the homestead exemption related only to November *150 14, 1969, and not to July 25, 1970. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Miller v. Miller
green
1 sentence1964Zillmer v. Zillmer (1960), 8 Wis. (2d) 657, 100 N. W. (2d) 564 , 101 N. W. (2d) 703 ; *554 Bliffert v. Bliffert (1961), 14 Wis. (2d) 316, 111 N. W. (2d) 188 ; Miller v. Miller (1962), 15 Wis. (2d) 583, 113 N. W. (2d) 403 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Hamachek v. Hamachek
green
2 sentences1961By the Court. — Order affirmed. 1 Brown v. Brown (1960), 9 Wis. (2d) 322, 327, 101 N. W. (2d) 48 . 2 Jensen v. Jensen (1919), 168 Wis. 502, 505 , 170 N. W. 735 . 3 Templeton v. Templeton (1948), 254 Wis. 92 , 35 N. W. (2d) 223 . 4 Sec. 247.24, Stats.; Zillmer v. Zillmer (1960), 8 Wis. (2d) 657, 100 N. W. (2d) 564 , 101 N. W. (2d) 703 . 5 Hamachek v. Hamachek (1955), 270 Wis. 194, 202 , 70 N. W. (2d) 595 . 6 2 Nelson, Divorce and Annulment (2d ed.), p. 251, sec. 15.47. 1961By the Court. — Order affirmed. 1 Brown v. Brown (1960), 9 Wis. (2d) 322, 327, 101 N. W. (2d) 48 . 2 Jensen v. Jensen (1919), 168 Wis. 502, 505 , 170 N. W. 735 . 3 Templeton v. Templeton (1948), 254 Wis. 92 , 35 N. W. (2d) 223 . 4 Sec. 247.24, Stats.; Zillmer v. Zillmer (1960), 8 Wis. (2d) 657, 100 N. W. (2d) 564 , 101 N. W. (2d) 703 . 5 Hamachek v. Hamachek (1955), 270 Wis. 194, 202 , 70 N. W. (2d) 595 . 6 2 Nelson, Divorce and Annulment (2d ed.), p. 251, sec. 15.47. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Templeton v. Templeton neutral | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Brown v. Brown neutral | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Jensen v. Jensen green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Bentson Administrator v. Brown green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Willey v. Lewis neutral | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| Keystone Lumber Co. v. Kolman neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Leasia v. Penokee Lumber Co. neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Hill v. American Surety Co. neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.