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.
14 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1950–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hughes v. Fettergreen2 sentences1991Wisconsin applies the doctrine of comity "unless to do so is contrary to the law, morals, or policy of the state where the action is sought to be maintained." Id. 1991Wisconsin applies the doctrine of comity "unless to do so is contrary to the law, morals, or policy of the state where the action is sought to be maintained." Id. | 1 | 3 |
Sweet v. Bergegreen2 sentences2003See Sweet v. Berge, 113 Wis. 2d 61, 67 , 334 N.W.2d 559 (Ct. App. 1983). ¶ 28. 2003See Sweet v. Berge, 113 Wis. 2d 61, 67 , 334 N.W.2d 559 (Ct. App. 1983). ¶ 28. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Teague v. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians
green
2 sentences2025According to “the traditional doctrine of comity, … courts will as a matter of discretion rather than obligation 9 No. 2024AP1673 defer to the assertion of jurisdiction … of other states or sovereigns out of mutual respect, and for the purpose of furthering the orderly administration of justice.” Teague v. Bad River Band, 2000 WI 79, ¶35 , 236 Wis. 2d 384 , 612 N.W.2d 709 . ¶22 We review a circuit court’s determination that principles of comity require dismissal for an erroneous exercise of discretion. 2025According to “the traditional doctrine of comity, … courts will as a matter of discretion rather than obligation 9 No. 2024AP1673 defer to the assertion of jurisdiction … of other states or sovereigns out of mutual respect, and for the purpose of furthering the orderly administration of justice.” Teague v. Bad River Band, 2000 WI 79, ¶35 , 236 Wis. 2d 384 , 612 N.W.2d 709 . ¶22 We review a circuit court’s determination that principles of comity require dismissal for an erroneous exercise of discretion. | 3 | 2003–2025 |
Hughes v. Fetter
green
2 sentences1974The doctrine of comity, as applied in Wisconsin, was well stated in Hughes v. Fetter (1950), 257 Wis. 35, 39 , 42 N. W. 2d 452 , 49 N. W. 2d 280 , reversed (1951), 341 U. S. 609 , 71 Sup. Ct. 980, 95 L. 1974The doctrine of comity, as applied in Wisconsin, was well stated in Hughes v. Fetter (1950), 257 Wis. 35, 39 , 42 N. W. 2d 452 , 49 N. W. 2d 280 , reversed (1951), 341 U. S. 609 , 71 Sup. Ct. 980, 95 L. | 2 | 1958–1974 |
Daniel J. Hennessy, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
green
2 sentences2025Hennessy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2022 WI 2, ¶¶40-44 , 400 Wis. 2d 50 , 968 N.W.2d 684 . 2025Hennessy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2022 WI 2, ¶¶40-44 , 400 Wis. 2d 50 , 968 N.W.2d 684 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
City of Brookfield v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
green
1 sentence2022It is "a doctrine of comity" and judicial efficiency, with the purpose of promoting "the proper relationship between administrative agencies and courts." Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Lane v. SHARP PACKAGING SYSTEMS, INC.
green
1 sentence2022Lane, 251 Wis. 2d 68, ¶19 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Marriage of Daniel-Nordin v. Nordin
green
2 sentences2000Daniel-Nordin v. Nordin, 173 Wis. 2d 635, 651 , 495 N.W.2d 318 (1993); Sheridan, 65 Wis. 2d at 510 ; Brazy v. Brazy, 5 Wis. 2d 352, 361 , 92 N.W.2d 738 (1958); Sengstock v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 165 Wis. 2d 86, 95 , 477 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. *406 1991). 2000Daniel-Nordin v. Nordin, 173 Wis. 2d 635, 651 , 495 N.W.2d 318 (1993); Sheridan, 65 Wis. 2d at 510 ; Brazy v. Brazy, 5 Wis. 2d 352, 361 , 92 N.W.2d 738 (1958); Sengstock v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 165 Wis. 2d 86, 95 , 477 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. *406 1991). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
In Re Custody of Sengstock
green
2 sentences2000Daniel-Nordin v. Nordin, 173 Wis. 2d 635, 651 , 495 N.W.2d 318 (1993); Sheridan, 65 Wis. 2d at 510 ; Brazy v. Brazy, 5 Wis. 2d 352, 361 , 92 N.W.2d 738 (1958); Sengstock v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 165 Wis. 2d 86, 95 , 477 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. *406 1991). 2000Daniel-Nordin v. Nordin, 173 Wis. 2d 635, 651 , 495 N.W.2d 318 (1993); Sheridan, 65 Wis. 2d at 510 ; Brazy v. Brazy, 5 Wis. 2d 352, 361 , 92 N.W.2d 738 (1958); Sengstock v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 165 Wis. 2d 86, 95 , 477 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. *406 1991). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Brazy v. Brazy
green
1 sentence2000Daniel-Nordin v. Nordin, 173 Wis. 2d 635, 651 , 495 N.W.2d 318 (1993); Sheridan, 65 Wis. 2d at 510 ; Brazy v. Brazy, 5 Wis. 2d 352, 361 , 92 N.W.2d 738 (1958); Sengstock v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 165 Wis. 2d 86, 95 , 477 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. *406 1991). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sheridan v. Sheridan
green
1 sentence2000Daniel-Nordin v. Nordin, 173 Wis. 2d 635, 651 , 495 N.W.2d 318 (1993); Sheridan, 65 Wis. 2d at 510 ; Brazy v. Brazy, 5 Wis. 2d 352, 361 , 92 N.W.2d 738 (1958); Sengstock v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 165 Wis. 2d 86, 95 , 477 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. *406 1991). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
J v. Ex Rel. Levine v. Barron
green
2 sentences1999In J.V. v. Barron, 112 Wis. 2d 256 , 332 N.W.2d 796 (1983), our supreme court explained the doctrine of comity. 1999In J.V. v. Barron, 112 Wis. 2d 256 , 332 N.W.2d 796 (1983), our supreme court explained the doctrine of comity. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNary
green
1 sentence1990Id. at 103 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Hughes v. Fetter
neutral
1 sentence1974The doctrine of comity, as applied in Wisconsin, was well stated in Hughes v. Fetter (1950), 257 Wis. 35, 39 , 42 N. W. 2d 452 , 49 N. W. 2d 280 , reversed (1951), 341 U. S. 609 , 71 Sup. Ct. 980, 95 L. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Estate of Wakefield
green
2 sentences1958In Estate of Wakefield (1923), 182 Wis. 208 , 196 N. W. 541 , arrearage of alimony under a California divorce judgment was considered a debt and was allowed as a claim against the share of the husband in an estate. 1958In Estate of Wakefield (1923), 182 Wis. 208 , 196 N. W. 541 , arrearage of alimony under a California divorce judgment was considered a debt and was allowed as a claim against the share of the husband in an estate. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
In Re Chase
green
2 sentences1950In re Chase, 195 N. C. 143 , 141 S. E. 471 . j_The doctrine" of comity results in recognition of a decree of a different state not entitled to full faith and credit. 1950In re Chase, 195 N. C. 143 , 141 S. E. 471 . j_The doctrine" of comity results in recognition of a decree of a different state not entitled to full faith and credit. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.