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.
28 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lodl v. Progressive Northern Insurancegreen2 sentences2025Ministerial Duty ¶25 “The ministerial duty exception is not so much an exception as a recognition that immunity law distinguishes between discretionary and ministerial acts, immunizing the performance of the former but not the latter.” Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶25 . 2024Ministerial Duty ¶11 “The ministerial duty exception is not so much an exception as a recognition that immunity law distinguishes between discretionary and ministerial acts, immunizing the performance of the former but not the latter.” Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶25 . | 4 | 8 |
Pries v. McMillongreen2 sentences2025While the ministerial duty and the known danger exceptions “overlap to an extent, inasmuch as they both require the identification of a ministerial duty,” Pries, 326 Wis. 2d 37, ¶24 , Clubb does not explain why we should apply the court’s reasoning in a known danger exception case to a ministerial duty exception case. 18 County is entitled to immunity pursuant to WIS. 2019See Pries , 326 Wis. 2d 37 , ¶22. | 3 | 7 |
Michael Engelhardt v. City of New Berlingreen2 sentences2025A ministerial duty 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.” Engelhardt, 385 Wis. 2d 86, ¶32 (citation omitted). 2025A ministerial duty 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.” Engelhardt, 385 Wis. 2d 86, ¶32 (citation omitted). | 3 | 4 |
Cords v. Andersongreen2 sentences2010Although I go along with the majority's ministerial duty analysis, I write separately because I conclude that the known danger analysis upon which the Court of Appeals resolved this case provides a simpler, and to me, a more persuasive means of resolving this case. [1] ¶ 44 The known danger reasoning in our precedent establishes that where "the nature of the danger is compelling and known to the officer and is of such force that the public officer has no discretion not to act," a ministerial duty arises. [2] ¶ 45 The seminal case explaining the known danger rationale is Cords v. Anderson, 80 W 2010Although I go along with the majority's ministerial duty analysis, I write separately because I conclude that the known danger analysis upon which the Court of Appeals resolved this case provides a simpler, and to me, a more persuasive means of resolving this case. [1] ¶ 44 The known danger reasoning in our precedent establishes that where "the nature of the danger is compelling and known to the officer and is of such force that the public officer has no discretion not to act," a ministerial duty arises. [2] ¶ 45 The seminal case explaining the known danger rationale is Cords v. Anderson, 80 W | 2 | 3 |
Lister v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin Systemgreen2 sentences2022Wis. Sys., 72 Wis. 2d 282, 301 , 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976). 2022Wis. Sys., 72 Wis. 2d 282, 301 , 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976). | 1 | 8 |
Meyers v. Schultzgreen2 sentences2010See Meyers v. Schultz, 2004 WI App 234, ¶ 19 , 277 Wis. 2d 845 , 690 N.W.2d 873 (concluding that manufacturers' instruc tions that the governmental unit did not create and that did not establish a contractual obligation by the entity was not "an act of government" that could satisfy the minimal requirements of a law or policy for purposes of the ministerial duty exception). ¶ 32. 2010See Meyers v. Schultz, 2004 WI App 234, ¶ 19 , 277 Wis. 2d 845 , 690 N.W.2d 873 (concluding that manufacturers' instruc tions that the governmental unit did not create and that did not establish a contractual obligation by the entity was not "an act of government" that could satisfy the minimal requirements of a law or policy for purposes of the ministerial duty exception). ¶ 32. | 1 | 2 |
Umansky v. ABC Insurancegreen2 sentences2013Co., 2009 WI 82, ¶ 64 , 319 Wis. 2d 622 , 769 N.W.2d 1 (Prosser, J., concurring). 2010The ministerial duty exception applies when a duty 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." Umansky, 319 Wis. 2d 622, ¶ 11 (citation omitted). ¶ 11. | 1 | 2 |
Pinter v. Vill. of Stetsonvillegreen1 sentence2024“A duty is ministerial if it 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.’” Pinter, 387 Wis. 2d 475, ¶41 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Districtgreen1 sentence2013This might be viewed by some as consistent with Justice Gableman's suggestion that in immunity cases analysis of ministerial duty should be "do[ne] away with." Bostco, 350 Wis. 2d 554, ¶ 103 (Gableman, J., concurring). ¶ 68. | 1 | 1 |
Swanson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2013As one court has put it, "it would be difficult to conceive of any official act, no matter how directly ministerial, that did not admit of some discretion in the manner of its performance, even if it involved only the driving of a nail." Ham v. Los Angeles Cnty., 189 P. 462, 468 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920); see also Swanson v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 217, 219-20 (N.D. 2013As one court has put it, "it would be difficult to conceive of any official act, no matter how directly ministerial, that did not admit of some discretion in the manner of its performance, even if it involved only the driving of a nail." Ham v. Los Angeles Cnty., 189 P.462, 468 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920); see also Swanson v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 217, 219-20 (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
Ham v. County of Los Angelesgreen1 sentence2013As one court has put it, "it would be difficult to conceive of any official act, no matter how directly ministerial, that did not admit of some discretion in the manner of its performance, even if it involved only the driving of a nail." Ham v. Los Angeles Cnty., 189 P. 462, 468 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920); see also Swanson v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 217, 219-20 (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
Stoughton Trailers, Inc. v. Labor & Industry Review Commissiongreen2 sentences2010See Stoughton Trailers, Inc. v. LIRC, 2007 WI 105 , ¶ 5 & n.3, 303 Wis. 2d 514 , 735 N.W.2d 477 (explaining that we decide cases on the narrowest grounds). 2010See Stoughton Trailers, Inc. v. LIRC, 2007 WI 105 , ¶ 5 & n.3, 303 Wis. 2d 514 , 735 N.W.2d 477 (explaining that we decide cases on the narrowest grounds). | 1 | 1 |
Kristi L.M. v. Dennis E.M.green2 sentences2008See Kristi L.M. v. Dennis E.M., 2007 WI 85 , ¶ 20 n.7, 302 Wis. 2d 185 , 734 N.W.2d 375 (undeveloped arguments need not be addressed). ¶ 24. 2008See Kristi L.M. v. Dennis E.M., 2007 WI 85 , ¶ 20 n.7, 302 Wis. 2d 185 , 734 N.W.2d 375 (undeveloped arguments need not be addressed). ¶ 24. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blalockgreen2 sentences2008See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 703 , 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989) (Cases should be decided on the narrowest possible grounds.); State v. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227 , ¶ 27 n.10, 248 Wis. 2d 409 , 636 N.W.2d 488 ("[W]e may affirm a trial court's ruling on a question of law on a different ground than that relied on by the trial court."). 2008See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 703 , 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989) (Cases should be decided on the narrowest possible grounds.); State v. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227 , ¶ 27 n.10, 248 Wis. 2d 409 , 636 N.W.2d 488 ("[W]e may affirm a trial court's ruling on a question of law on a different ground than that relied on by the trial court."). | 1 | 1 |
Kierstyn v. Racine Unified School Districtgreen2 sentences2002See Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 91 . 2002See Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 91 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
C.L. v. Olson
green
2 sentences2019The danger was "of such force" that Bell had no discretion not to act——the circumstances of the situation imposed upon him a ministerial duty to test Lily's swimming ability before she got into the water.59 58 Id., ¶46 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring). 59 See C.L., 143 Wis. 2d at 715 . 21 No. 2016AP801 ¶55 Bell was aware that Lily could not swim. 2010As this court explained in C.L., "[C]ircumstances may give rise to such a certain duty, where... the nature of the danger is compelling and known to the officer and is of such force that the public officer has no discretion not to act." 143 Wis.2d at 715 , 422 N.W.2d 614 . ¶ 25 We begin with our analysis of whether the ministerial duty exception applies under the circumstances presented here. | 3 | 2002–2019 |
Domino v. Walworth County
green
2 sentences2024Id. at 491 . 2019V ¶63 We conclude that the known danger exception applies in the instant case, and as a result, New Berlin is not entitled to governmental immunity pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 893.80 (4). 63 C.L., 143 Wis. 2d at 715 n.8 (quoting Domino, 118 Wis. 2d at 491-93 ); see also Pries, 326 Wis. 2d 37 , ¶45 n.4 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring) (quoting Domino, 118 Wis. 2d at 491 ). 24 No. 2016AP801 ¶64 Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. | 2 | 2019–2024 |
Robert H. Shugarts, II v. Dennis M. Mohr
green
2 sentences2019Id. 9 ¶27 In our review, we examine whether the ministerial duty exception to governmental immunity applies. 2019Id. ¶27 In our review, we examine whether the ministerial duty exception to governmental immunity applies. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Holytz v. City of Milwaukee
red
2 sentences2013For example, we have immunized such conduct as a road test examiner's purported negligence in issuing a driver's license to an applicant who was allegedly too overweight to drive, 3 a university instructor's construction of a volleyball net, 4 a school district benefits specialist's incorrect advice, 5 a police officer's allegedly negligent management of a busy intersection during a rain storm, 6 and a high school guidance counselor providing inaccurate information regarding a student's scholarship eligibility requirements. 7 All of these decisions are at odds with Holytz and the immunity stat 2010Moreover, at oral argument, counsel for Pries urged this court to reaffirm a general rule initially set forth in Holytz v. City of Milwaukee, 17 Wis. 2d 26 , 115 N.W.2d 618 (1962). | 2 | 2010–2013 |
Rolland v. County of Milwaukee
green
2 sentences2024The disassembly procedure in Pries detailed a specific task that was to be performed and defined the time (always), mode (someone holds up the stall piece), and occasion (when the stalls 12 We previously addressed why Rolland v. County of Milwaukee, 2001 WI App 53 , 241 Wis. 2d 215 , 625 N.W.2d 590 , is not persuasive, see supra ¶¶33-34, and why the court’s reasoning in Domino is not applicable to the ministerial duty analysis, see supra note 6. 22 are taken down) for its performance. 2024The disassembly procedure in Pries detailed a specific task that was to be performed and defined the time (always), mode (someone holds up the stall piece), and occasion (when the stalls 12 We previously addressed why Rolland v. County of Milwaukee, 2001 WI App 53 , 241 Wis. 2d 215 , 625 N.W.2d 590 , is not persuasive, see supra ¶¶33-34, and why the court’s reasoning in Domino is not applicable to the ministerial duty analysis, see supra note 6. 22 are taken down) for its performance. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Oden v. City of Milwaukee
neutral
2 sentences2021“The first step in the ministerial duty analysis is to identify a source of law or policy that imposes the 6 alleged duty.” Oden v. City of Milwaukee, 2015 WI App 29, ¶13 , 361 Wis. 2d 708 , 863 N.W.2d 619 (citation omitted). ¶19 Moss points to this court’s decision in Brown County Sheriff’s Department Non-Supervisory Labor Association v. Brown County, 2009 WI App 75 , 318 Wis. 2d 774 , 767 N.W.2d 600 . 2021“The first step in the ministerial duty analysis is to identify a source of law or policy that imposes the 6 alleged duty.” Oden v. City of Milwaukee, 2015 WI App 29, ¶13 , 361 Wis. 2d 708 , 863 N.W.2d 619 (citation omitted). ¶19 Moss points to this court’s decision in Brown County Sheriff’s Department Non-Supervisory Labor Association v. Brown County, 2009 WI App 75 , 318 Wis. 2d 774 , 767 N.W.2d 600 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Brown County Sheriff's Department Non-Supervisory Labor Ass'n v. Brown County
green
2 sentences2021“The first step in the ministerial duty analysis is to identify a source of law or policy that imposes the 6 alleged duty.” Oden v. City of Milwaukee, 2015 WI App 29, ¶13 , 361 Wis. 2d 708 , 863 N.W.2d 619 (citation omitted). ¶19 Moss points to this court’s decision in Brown County Sheriff’s Department Non-Supervisory Labor Association v. Brown County, 2009 WI App 75 , 318 Wis. 2d 774 , 767 N.W.2d 600 . 2021“The first step in the ministerial duty analysis is to identify a source of law or policy that imposes the 6 alleged duty.” Oden v. City of Milwaukee, 2015 WI App 29, ¶13 , 361 Wis. 2d 708 , 863 N.W.2d 619 (citation omitted). ¶19 Moss points to this court’s decision in Brown County Sheriff’s Department Non-Supervisory Labor Association v. Brown County, 2009 WI App 75 , 318 Wis. 2d 774 , 767 N.W.2d 600 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Willow Creek Ranch, L.L.C. v. Town of Shelby
green
2 sentences2014The majority opinion claims that some cases, specifically Willow Creek Ranch, L.L.C. v. Town of Shelby, 2000 WI 56 , 235 Wis. 2d 409 , 611 N.W.2d 693 , have used a less stringent statement of the ministerial duty standard. 2014The majority opinion claims that some cases, specifically Willow Creek Ranch, L.L.C. v. Town of Shelby, 2000 WI 56 , 235 Wis. 2d 409 , 611 N.W.2d 693 , have used a less stringent statement of the ministerial duty standard. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Lifer Ex Rel. Grutzner v. Raymond
green
2 sentences2013For example, we have immunized such conduct as a road test examiner's purported negligence in issuing a driver's license to 6 No. 2007AP221 & 2007AP1440.mjg an applicant who was allegedly too overweight to drive,3 a university instructor's construction of a volleyball net,4 a school district benefits specialist's incorrect advice,5 a police officer's allegedly negligent management of a busy intersection during a rain storm,6 and a high school guidance counselor providing inaccurate information regarding a student's scholarship eligibility requirements.7 All of these decisions 3 Lifer v. Raymon 2013For example, we have immunized such conduct as a road test examiner's purported negligence in issuing a driver's license to 6 No. 2007AP221 & 2007AP1440.mjg an applicant who was allegedly too overweight to drive,3 a university instructor's construction of a volleyball net,4 a school district benefits specialist's incorrect advice,5 a police officer's allegedly negligent management of a busy intersection during a rain storm,6 and a high school guidance counselor providing inaccurate information regarding a student's scholarship eligibility requirements.7 All of these decisions 3 Lifer v. Raymon | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Umansky v. ABC Insurance
green
2 sentences2009The regulation provides: "Every open-sided floor or platform 4 feet or more above adjacent floor or ground level shall be guarded by a standard railing (or the equivalent as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section) on all open sides except where there is entrance to a ramp, stairway, or fixed ladder...." Umansky, 313 Wis.2d 445, ¶¶ 6-9 , 756 N.W.2d 601 . ¶ 7 As noted above, the circuit court granted Fox's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that neither the ministerial duty exception nor the known danger exception applied in this case; because it found no applicable exception, the cir 2009The regulation provides: "Every open-sided floor or platform 4 feet or more above adjacent floor or ground level shall be guarded by a standard railing (or the equivalent as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section) on all open sides except where there is entrance to a ramp, stairway, or fixed ladder...." Umansky, 313 Wis.2d 445, ¶¶ 6-9 , 756 N.W.2d 601 . ¶ 7 As noted above, the circuit court granted Fox's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that neither the ministerial duty exception nor the known danger exception applied in this case; because it found no applicable exception, the cir | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Kimps v. Hill
green
1 sentence2009Of course, before the Umanskys can proceed to attempt to prove their negligence case, they must first defeat Fox's defense of immunity, to which he is entitled as a state employee unless an exception applies. 6 The Umanskys argue that the ministerial duty exception applies to defeat Fox's immunity. 7 As discussed above, "a public officer or employee is not shielded from liability for the negligent performance of a purely ministerial duty." Kimps, 200 Wis. 2d at 10 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Gribble
green
2 sentences2008See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 703 , 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989) (Cases should be decided on the narrowest possible grounds.); State v. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227 , ¶ 27 n.10, 248 Wis. 2d 409 , 636 N.W.2d 488 ("[W]e may affirm a trial court's ruling on a question of law on a different ground than that relied on by the trial court."). 2008See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 703 , 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989) (Cases should be decided on the narrowest possible grounds.); State v. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227 , ¶ 27 n.10, 248 Wis. 2d 409 , 636 N.W.2d 488 ("[W]e may affirm a trial court's ruling on a question of law on a different ground than that relied on by the trial court."). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Bauder v. Delavan-Darien School District
green
2 sentences2002Dist., 207 Wis. 2d 310, 315 , 558 N.W.2d 881 (Ct.App. 1996)(use of partially-deflated soccer ball in indoor gym class at public school not a known and compelling danger). [6] The dissent views this opinion as collapsing the known danger exception into the ministerial duty exception. 2002Dist., 207 Wis. 2d 310, 315 , 558 N.W.2d 881 (Ct.App. 1996)(use of partially-deflated soccer ball in indoor gym class at public school not a known and compelling danger). [6] The dissent views this opinion as collapsing the known danger exception into the ministerial duty exception. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Losinski v. County of Trempealeau
green
1 sentence1995Id. at 554 . [4] The Barillaris argue that either the ministerial duty exception described in Domino or the known and compelling danger exception identified in Cords and *260 Losinski [5] is applicable to the facts of this case. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.