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.
13 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
First National Bank of Columbus v. Hansengreen2 sentences1995See First Nat'l Bank v. Hansen, 84 Wis. 2d 422, 427-28 , 267 N.W.2d 367, 370 (1978). 1995See First Nat'l Bank v. Hansen, 84 Wis. 2d 422, 427-28 , 267 N.W.2d 367, 370 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
LaChapell v. Mawhinneygreen2 sentences1983In *345 LaChapell v. Mawhinney, 66 Wis. 2d 679, 683-84 , 225 N.W.2d 501, 503 (1975), our supreme court refused to adhere to an inflexible rule that the doctrine of the best interests of the child cannot prevail in every custody dispute involving a natural parent and the child’s grandparents. 1983In *345 LaChapell v. Mawhinney, 66 Wis. 2d 679, 683-84 , 225 N.W.2d 501, 503 (1975), our supreme court refused to adhere to an inflexible rule that the doctrine of the best interests of the child cannot prevail in every custody dispute involving a natural parent and the child’s grandparents. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lentz v. Young
green
2 sentences2025STAT. §] 802.10, move for summary judgment on any claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or 3rd-party claim which is asserted by or against the party.” “[T]he purpose of requiring parties to file motions for summary judgment within eight months of the filing of the summons and complaint is to prevent parties from using summary judgment as a delay tactic.” Lentz, 195 Wis. 2d at 466 . “[T]he eight-month deadline is not an inflexible rule that the [circuit] courts must blindly apply,” and “courts have the inherent power to control their dockets to achieve economy of time and effort.” Id. at 465 . ¶15 2025STAT. §] 802.10, move for summary judgment on any claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or 3rd-party claim which is asserted by or against the party.” “[T]he purpose of requiring parties to file motions for summary judgment within eight months of the filing of the summons and complaint is to prevent parties from using summary judgment as a delay tactic.” Lentz, 195 Wis. 2d at 466 . “[T]he eight-month deadline is not an inflexible rule that the [circuit] courts must blindly apply,” and “courts have the inherent power to control their dockets to achieve economy of time and effort.” Id. at 465 . ¶15 | 2 | 2020–2025 |
Gummer v. Trustees of Omro
green
2 sentences1967Gummer v. Omro, 50 Wis. 247 , 6 N. W. 885 ; Gratz v. Parker, 137 Wis. 104 , 118 N. W. 637 .’ “In 2 Black, Judgments (2d ed.), p. 1051, sec. 699, the author states: “ ‘It is a settled and inflexible rule that a judgment of nonsuit is not a judgment upon the merits, and therefore it is no bar to another suit upon the same cause of action * “See also Rohr v. Chicago, N. S. & M. 1967Gummer v. Omro, 50 Wis. 247 , 6 N. W. 885 ; Gratz v. Parker, 137 Wis. 104 , 118 N. W. 637 .’ “In 2 Black, Judgments (2d ed.), p. 1051, sec. 699, the author states: “ ‘It is a settled and inflexible rule that a judgment of nonsuit is not a judgment upon the merits, and therefore it is no bar to another suit upon the same cause of action * “See also Rohr v. Chicago, N. S. & M. | 2 | 1963–1967 |
Gratz v. Parker
neutral
2 sentences1967Gummer v. Omro, 50 Wis. 247 , 6 N. W. 885 ; Gratz v. Parker, 137 Wis. 104 , 118 N. W. 637 .’ “In 2 Black, Judgments (2d ed.), p. 1051, sec. 699, the author states: “ ‘It is a settled and inflexible rule that a judgment of nonsuit is not a judgment upon the merits, and therefore it is no bar to another suit upon the same cause of action * “See also Rohr v. Chicago, N. S. & M. 1967Gummer v. Omro, 50 Wis. 247 , 6 N. W. 885 ; Gratz v. Parker, 137 Wis. 104 , 118 N. W. 637 .’ “In 2 Black, Judgments (2d ed.), p. 1051, sec. 699, the author states: “ ‘It is a settled and inflexible rule that a judgment of nonsuit is not a judgment upon the merits, and therefore it is no bar to another suit upon the same cause of action * “See also Rohr v. Chicago, N. S. & M. | 2 | 1963–1967 |
Maple Grove Country Club Inc. v. Maple Grove Estates Sanitary District
green
2 sentences2023Sanitary Dist., 2019 WI 43, ¶¶46-48 , 386 Wis. 2d 425 , 926 N.W.2d 184 (explaining that the filing of a summary judgment motion within “the eight-month deadline is not an inflexible rule that the [circuit] courts must blindly apply”). 2023Sanitary Dist., 2019 WI 43, ¶¶46-48 , 386 Wis. 2d 425 , 926 N.W.2d 184 (explaining that the filing of a summary judgment motion within “the eight-month deadline is not an inflexible rule that the [circuit] courts must blindly apply”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State Ex Rel. Lockman v. Gerhardstein
green
1 sentence2021Here, there is no indication that S.M.S. intentionally delayed the probable cause hearing; yet, if I were to adopt an inflexible rule, it could encourage other persons in S.M.S.’s situation to run out the clock in an attempt to force a dismissal from the circuit court. ¶15 S.M.S. points to Lockman, 107 Wis. 2d 325 , but I am not persuaded that that opinion supports a different outcome in this case. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
County of Milwaukee v. Edward S.
green
1 sentence2021We dealt with a similar concern in Edward S., 247 Wis. 2d 87 , which addressed the time limits for final hearings under WIS. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Illinois v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2013It would be absurd to sanction a police officer for entering a home after being let in by a college student who had spent, say, 18 of his 20 years living at the residence solely because he was, at that particular time, merely a "weekend guest." Society is not so irrational.7 ¶17 The only binding authority that is arguably at odds with our conclusion is Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 7 Instructively, the approach we take today was followed by a court that reached the opposite outcome, but did so not with reference to the inflexible rule advocated by Sobczak, but rather in consideration of | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Wilson v. Arkansas
green
2 sentences2000The announcement principle is not "an inflexible rule requiring announcement under all circumstances." Id. 2000The announcement principle is not "an inflexible rule requiring announcement under all circumstances." Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Stevens
green
2 sentences1996Id. at 1918 . 1996Id. at 1918 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Jethro Barrett v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., E.B.B. Co., Inc. And Lift Barge, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Company, Intervenor-Appellant
green
1 sentence1995The determination based on the entire employment context, however, "is not an inflexible requirement," id., and is qualified by two exceptions. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Du Cate v. Town of Brighton
green
1 sentence1983Du Cate v. Brighton, supra, 133 Wis. at 637 . | 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.