14 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisors LLCgreen1 sentence2023“A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Data Key Partners, 356 Wis. 2d 665, ¶19 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Deborah S.S. v. Yogesh N.G.green2 sentences2016See Deborah S.S. v. Yogesh N.G., 175 Wis. 2d 436 , 499 N.W.2d 272 (Ct. App. 1993)(improper sexual conduct by a physician against a patient during a physical examination constitutes intentional conduct, not medical malpractice). 2016See Deborah S.S. v. Yogesh N.G., 175 Wis. 2d 436 , 499 N.W.2d 272 (Ct. App. 1993)(improper sexual conduct by a physician against a patient during a physical examination constitutes intentional conduct, not medical malpractice). | 1 | 1 |
Weiss v. Regent Properties, Ltd.green2 sentences2015See Weiss v. Regent Props., Ltd., 118 Wis. 2d 225, 230 , 346 N.W.2d 766 (1984). ¶90 A wrongful death claim is derivative in the sense that if the decedent did not have an actionable claim that his death was "wrongful," i.e., tortious, a statutory beneficiary cannot bring a subsequent wrongful death action. 2015See Weiss v. Regent Props., Ltd., 118 Wis. 2d 225, 230 , 346 N.W.2d 766 (1984). ¶90 A wrongful death claim is derivative in the sense that if the decedent did not have an actionable claim that his death was "wrongful," i.e., tortious, a statutory beneficiary cannot bring a subsequent wrongful death action. | 1 | 1 |
Graver v. Foster Wheeler Corp.green1 sentence2015Although this interpretation may seem harsh to asbestos plaintiffs who will not even know they have a claim until long after the statute of repose has barred their action (assuming it arises from an improvement to real property), "[i]t is not our function as the judiciary to construct an asbestos-related exception to the statute of repose in construction cases." See Graver v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 96 A.3d 383, 389 (Pa. Super. | 1 | 1 |
Rockweit v. Senecalgreen2 sentences2006We require a plaintiff to plead facts, which if proved true, would establish the following four elements: "(1) the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty of care, (3) a causal connection between the defendant's breach of the duty of care and the plaintiffs injury, and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the [breach]." 12 Gritzner, 235 Wis. 2d 781, ¶ 19 ; see also Rockweit v. Senecal, 197 Wis. 2d 409, 418 , 541 N.W.2d 742 (1995). ¶ 24. 2006We require a plaintiff to plead facts, which if proved true, would establish the following four elements: "(1) the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty of care, (3) a causal connection between the defendant's breach of the duty of care and the plaintiffs injury, and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the [breach]." 12 Gritzner, 235 Wis. 2d 781, ¶ 19 ; see also Rockweit v. Senecal, 197 Wis. 2d 409, 418 , 541 N.W.2d 742 (1995). ¶ 24. | 1 | 1 |
Spitler v. Deangreen2 sentences2006See Spitler v. Dean, 148 Wis. 2d 630, 638 , 436 N.W.2d 308 (1989). ”[R]easonable diligence ... means such diligence as the great majority of persons would use in the same or similar circumstances." Id. 7 " '[L]evel of concern' has been defined by the PSC [Public Service Commission] as the level above which corrective or mitigative action should be taken if production or behavioral problems exist, which is one milliampere in the 'cow contact' areas." Hoffmann v. Wisconsin Elec. 2006See Spitler v. Dean, 148 Wis. 2d 630, 638 , 436 N.W.2d 308 (1989). ”[R]easonable diligence ... means such diligence as the great majority of persons would use in the same or similar circumstances." Id. 7 " '[L]evel of concern' has been defined by the PSC [Public Service Commission] as the level above which corrective or mitigative action should be taken if production or behavioral problems exist, which is one milliampere in the 'cow contact' areas." Hoffmann v. Wisconsin Elec. | 1 | 1 |
MacKenzie v. Miller Brewing Co.green2 sentences2005See Mackenzie v. Miller Brewing Co., 2001 WI 23 , ¶ 18 n.15, 241 Wis. 2d 700 , 623 N.W.2d 739 . 2005See Mackenzie v. Miller Brewing Co., 2001 WI 23 , ¶ 18 n.15, 241 Wis. 2d 700 , 623 N.W.2d 739 . | 1 | 1 |
Seery v. Yale-New Haven Hospitalgreen1 sentence2000See Seery v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., 554 A.2d 757, 761 (Conn. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc.green1 sentence2000See Tatge, 219 Wis. 2d at 115 (collecting cases). | 1 | 1 |
Radue v. Dillgreen2 sentences1983In Radue v. Dill, 74 Wis. 2d 239, 245 , 246 N.W.2d 507, 511 (1976) (citations omitted), the court said that on “numerous occasions, this court has held that if a violation of the criminal statute sec. 134.01, Stats., causes damage to a person, a cause of action accrues to him for such a violation.” To have an actionable claim under sec. 134.01, a plaintiff need only demonstrate that “the defendants conspired for one of the purposes proscribed by sec. 134.01 and thereby caused damage to the plaintiff.” Id. 1983In Radue v. Dill, 74 Wis. 2d 239, 245 , 246 N.W.2d 507, 511 (1976) (citations omitted), the court said that on “numerous occasions, this court has held that if a violation of the criminal statute sec. 134.01, Stats., causes damage to a person, a cause of action accrues to him for such a violation.” To have an actionable claim under sec. 134.01, a plaintiff need only demonstrate that “the defendants conspired for one of the purposes proscribed by sec. 134.01 and thereby caused damage to the plaintiff.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gritzner v. Michael R.
green
2 sentences2009The four elements are as follows: "`(1) the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty of care, (3) a causal connection between the defendant's breach of the duty of care and the plaintiff's injury, and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the [breach].'" Id. (citing Gritzner v. Michael R., 2000 WI 68 , 235 Wis.2d 781, ¶ 19 , 611 N.W.2d 906 ). *556 1. 2009The four elements are as follows: "`(1) the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty of care, (3) a causal connection between the defendant's breach of the duty of care and the plaintiff's injury, and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the [breach].'" Id. (citing Gritzner v. Michael R., 2000 WI 68 , 235 Wis.2d 781, ¶ 19 , 611 N.W.2d 906 ). *556 1. | 2 | 2006–2009 |
Butler v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Butler v. Advanced Drainage Sys., Inc., 2006 WI 102, ¶20 , 294 Wis. 2d 397 , 717 N.W.2d 760 ; Hornback, 313 Wis. 2d 294, ¶20 . ¶31 Six public policy factors exist to determine if a court should “deny liability even in the face of proven or assumed negligence”: 7 We note that Jauquet failed to directly respond to GRACE’s public policy arguments, including an analysis of the six public policy factors discussed herein, despite the fact that the issue was raised in GRACE’s second motion to dismiss at the circuit court level and in GRACE’s brief on appeal. 2022Butler v. Advanced Drainage Sys., Inc., 2006 WI 102, ¶20 , 294 Wis. 2d 397 , 717 N.W.2d 760 ; Hornback, 313 Wis. 2d 294, ¶20 . ¶31 Six public policy factors exist to determine if a court should “deny liability even in the face of proven or assumed negligence”: 7 We note that Jauquet failed to directly respond to GRACE’s public policy arguments, including an analysis of the six public policy factors discussed herein, despite the fact that the issue was raised in GRACE’s second motion to dismiss at the circuit court level and in GRACE’s brief on appeal. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Hornback v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee
green
1 sentence2022Butler v. Advanced Drainage Sys., Inc., 2006 WI 102, ¶20 , 294 Wis. 2d 397 , 717 N.W.2d 760 ; Hornback, 313 Wis. 2d 294, ¶20 . ¶31 Six public policy factors exist to determine if a court should “deny liability even in the face of proven or assumed negligence”: 7 We note that Jauquet failed to directly respond to GRACE’s public policy arguments, including an analysis of the six public policy factors discussed herein, despite the fact that the issue was raised in GRACE’s second motion to dismiss at the circuit court level and in GRACE’s brief on appeal. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Miller v. Luther
green
2 sentences2015Miller, 170 Wis. 2d at 437 . 2015Miller, 170 Wis. 2d at 437 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hoida, Inc. v. M & I MIDSTATE BANK
green
2 sentences2009"Wisconsin courts have engaged a four-element analysis to determine whether an actionable claim for negligence has been stated." Hoida, 291 Wis.2d 283, ¶ 23 , 717 N.W.2d 17 . 2009"Wisconsin courts have engaged a four-element analysis to determine whether an actionable claim for negligence has been stated." Hoida, 291 Wis.2d 283, ¶ 23 , 717 N.W.2d 17 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District v. City of Milwaukee
green
2 sentences2009Sewerage Dist., 2005 WI 8, ¶ 63 , 277 Wis.2d 635 , 691 N.W.2d 658 : Having determined that the only actionable claim in this case is one for negligently failing to abate a nuisance, we lastly examine whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in this case. 2009Sewerage Dist., 2005 WI 8, ¶ 63 , 277 Wis.2d 635 , 691 N.W.2d 658 : Having determined that the only actionable claim in this case is one for negligently failing to abate a nuisance, we lastly examine whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in this case. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008As I explained in my concurrence/dissent in Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 22 , 308 Wis. 2d 103 , 746 N.W.2d 762 (Stuart I), the findings of the jury are not sufficient to sustain an actionable claim for misrepresentation because the jury found only promises of future performance, not representations of facts then in existence. 2008As I explained in my concurrence/dissent in Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 22 , 308 Wis. 2d 103 , 746 N.W.2d 762 (Stuart I), the findings of the jury are not sufficient to sustain an actionable claim for misrepresentation because the jury found only promises of future performance, not representations of facts then in existence. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Smaxwell v. Bayard
green
2 sentences2006We *27 require a plaintiff to plead facts, which if proved true, would establish the following four elements: "(1) the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty of care, (3) a causal connection between the defendant's breach of the duty of care and the plaintiff's injury, and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the [breach]." [12] Gritzner, 235 Wis.2d 781, ¶ 19 , 611 N.W.2d 906 ; see also Rockweit v. Senecal, 197 Wis.2d 409, 418 , 541 N.W.2d 742 (1995). ¶ 24 Wisconsin courts have also reserved the right to deny the existence of a negligence claim 2006We *27 require a plaintiff to plead facts, which if proved true, would establish the following four elements: "(1) the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty of care, (3) a causal connection between the defendant's breach of the duty of care and the plaintiff's injury, and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the [breach]." [12] Gritzner, 235 Wis.2d 781, ¶ 19 , 611 N.W.2d 906 ; see also Rockweit v. Senecal, 197 Wis.2d 409, 418 , 541 N.W.2d 742 (1995). ¶ 24 Wisconsin courts have also reserved the right to deny the existence of a negligence claim | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Fischer v. Cleveland Punch & Shear Works Co.
green
2 sentences2006"A cause of action in negligence requires proof that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care and that the act or omission complained of was the cause of the plaintiff's injury." Fischer v. Cleveland Punch & Shear Works Co., 91 Wis.2d 85, 92 , 280 N.W.2d 280 (1979) (citing Greiten v. La Dow, 70 Wis.2d 589, 601 , 235 N.W.2d 677 (1975)). ¶ 23 For decades, Wisconsin courts have engaged a four-element analysis to determine whether an actionable claim for negligence has been stated. 2006"A cause of action in negligence requires proof that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care and that the act or omission complained of was the cause of the plaintiff's injury." Fischer v. Cleveland Punch & Shear Works Co., 91 Wis.2d 85, 92 , 280 N.W.2d 280 (1979) (citing Greiten v. La Dow, 70 Wis.2d 589, 601 , 235 N.W.2d 677 (1975)). ¶ 23 For decades, Wisconsin courts have engaged a four-element analysis to determine whether an actionable claim for negligence has been stated. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Greiten v. La Dow
green
2 sentences2006"A cause of action in negligence requires proof that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care and that the act or omission complained of was the cause of the plaintiff's injury." Fischer v. Cleveland Punch & Shear Works Co., 91 Wis.2d 85, 92 , 280 N.W.2d 280 (1979) (citing Greiten v. La Dow, 70 Wis.2d 589, 601 , 235 N.W.2d 677 (1975)). ¶ 23 For decades, Wisconsin courts have engaged a four-element analysis to determine whether an actionable claim for negligence has been stated. 2006"A cause of action in negligence requires proof that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care and that the act or omission complained of was the cause of the plaintiff's injury." Fischer v. Cleveland Punch & Shear Works Co., 91 Wis.2d 85, 92 , 280 N.W.2d 280 (1979) (citing Greiten v. La Dow, 70 Wis.2d 589, 601 , 235 N.W.2d 677 (1975)). ¶ 23 For decades, Wisconsin courts have engaged a four-element analysis to determine whether an actionable claim for negligence has been stated. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Holifield v. Setco Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences1992(Emphasis added.) More recently, in Holifield v. Setco Ind., 42 Wis. 2d 750 , 168 N.W.2d 177 (1969), our supreme court dealt with the issue in the context of a statute of limitation. 1992(Emphasis added.) More recently, in Holifield v. Setco Ind., 42 Wis. 2d 750 , 168 N.W.2d 177 (1969), our supreme court dealt with the issue in the context of a statute of limitation. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Brown v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1992In Brown, 102 Wis. at 142 , 77 N.W. at 750 , our supreme court, interpreting sec. 4255, Stats. (1898), the predecessor to sec. 895.03, Stats., stated that the condi-. tion of the right to a wrongful death action is "the existence of the actionable claim for damages at the time of the death" of decedent. 1992In Brown, 102 Wis. at 142 , 77 N.W. at 750 , our supreme court, interpreting sec. 4255, Stats. (1898), the predecessor to sec. 895.03, Stats., stated that the condi-. tion of the right to a wrongful death action is "the existence of the actionable claim for damages at the time of the death" of decedent. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Dziewa v. Vossler
green
1 sentence1991END OF VOLUME 1 Plaintiffs' rely on Dziewa v. Vossler, 149 Wis. 2d 74 (1989), as support for their argument that they have stated an actionable claim for negligence. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.