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 1974–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Northern States Power Co. v. Bughergreen2 sentences2023See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (undeveloped legal arguments and arguments unsupported by references to legal authority will not be considered). ¶17 As stated, the third element of claim preclusion requires that there be a final judgment on the merits “by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d at 551 . 2019See N. States Power Co. , 189 Wis. 2d at 551 , 525 N.W.2d 723 . ¶42 The parties exhaustively litigated the issue of whether the reducing clause in the Wilson policy applies. | 2 | 2 |
Kruckenberg v. Harveygreen2 sentences2020The doctrine developed because we recognize that "endless litigation leads to chaos; that certainty in legal relations must be maintained; that after a party has had his day in court, justice, expediency, and the preservation of the public tranquility requires that the matter be at an end." Kruckenberg, 279 Wis. 2d 520, ¶20 (quoted source omitted). 11 ¶19 DSG agrees that its circumstances satisfy the first two elements of the claim preclusion test,10 so the only issue here is whether the third element of the claim preclusion test is satisfied——to wit, whether there is an "identity of the cause 2020The doctrine developed because we recognize that "endless litigation leads to chaos; that certainty in legal relations must be maintained; that after a party has had his day in court, justice, expediency, and the preservation of the public tranquility requires that the matter be at an end." Kruckenberg, 279 Wis. 2d 520, ¶20 (quoted source omitted). 11 ¶19 DSG agrees that its circumstances satisfy the first two elements of the claim preclusion test,10 so the only issue here is whether the third element of the claim preclusion test is satisfied——to wit, whether there is an "identity of the cause | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pettitgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (undeveloped legal arguments and arguments unsupported by references to legal authority will not be considered). ¶17 As stated, the third element of claim preclusion requires that there be a final judgment on the merits “by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d at 551 . 2023See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (undeveloped legal arguments and arguments unsupported by references to legal authority will not be considered). ¶17 As stated, the third element of claim preclusion requires that there be a final judgment on the merits “by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d at 551 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vollbrechtgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Vollbrecht, 2012 WI App 90, ¶25 , 344 Wis. 2d 69 , 820 N.W.2d 443 . 10 ¶21 Devroy’s failure to satisfy the third element of the test disposes of his claim. 2021See State v. Vollbrecht, 2012 WI App 90, ¶25 , 344 Wis. 2d 69 , 820 N.W.2d 443 . 10 ¶21 Devroy’s failure to satisfy the third element of the test disposes of his claim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kastergreen1 sentence2021See Kaster, 148 Wis. 2d at 801 . | 1 | 1 |
South Dakota v. Oppermangreen1 sentence2020The purpose of such a search is "the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody; the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and the protection of the police from potential danger." Opperman, 428 U.S. at 369 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Great Lakes Trucking Co., Inc. v. Blackgreen1 sentence2011See Great Lakes Trucking, 165 Wis. 2d at 168-69 . | 1 | 1 |
Household Finance Corp. v. Christiangreen2 sentences1998Corp. v. Christian, 8 Wis. 2d 53, 55-56 , 98 N.W.2d 390, 392-93 (1959). 1998Corp. v. Christian, 8 Wis. 2d 53, 55-56 , 98 N.W.2d 390, 392-93 (1959). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cholvin v. Wisconsin Department of Health & Family Services
green
1 sentence2024An agency action has the “effect of law” when: “criminal or civil sanctions can result [from] a violation”; “licensure can be denied”; or “the interest 38 of individuals in a class can be legally affected through enforcement of the agency action.” Cholvin, 313 Wis. 2d 749, ¶26 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Milwaukee Area Joint Plumbing Apprenticeship Committee v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations
green
1 sentence2024Effect of Law ¶71 Turning to the third element of the test, an agency action has the “effect of law” when the agency uses “express mandatory language” that is “more than informational” and “speaks with an official voice intended to have the effect of law.” Milwaukee Area Joint Plumbing Apprenticeship Comm., 172 Wis. 2d at 321 & n.12. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Citizens for Sensible Zoning, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources
green
1 sentence2024As such, this satisfies the third element of a rule. ¶33 The fourth and fifth elements of a rule include that it be “issued by an agency” “to implement, interpret or make specific legislation enforced or administered by such agency[.]” Citizens for Sensible Zoning, Inc., 90 Wis. 2d at 814 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
City of Cedarburg v. Ries B. Hansen
green
1 sentence2023Id. ¶15 The primary dispute in this case centers on the third element of claim preclusion: whether there was a final judgment with respect to the original refusal in a “court of competent jurisdiction.” Wilson concedes that the municipal court “lacked competence to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction over the refusal citation in light of the fact that it arose from what was factually a second-offense OWI charge.” According to Wilson, however, claim preclusion nevertheless applies based on the following premises. ¶16 Wilson first argues that, consistent with City of Cedarburg v. Hansen, 20 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Pasko v. City of Milwaukee
green
1 sentence2023Id. ¶15 The primary dispute in this case centers on the third element of claim preclusion: whether there was a final judgment with respect to the original refusal in a “court of competent jurisdiction.” Wilson concedes that the municipal court “lacked competence to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction over the refusal citation in light of the fact that it arose from what was factually a second-offense OWI charge.” According to Wilson, however, claim preclusion nevertheless applies based on the following premises. ¶16 Wilson first argues that, consistent with City of Cedarburg v. Hansen, 20 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
City of Cedarburg v. Hansen
green
1 sentence2023Id. ¶15 The primary dispute in this case centers on the third element of claim preclusion: whether there was a final judgment with respect to the original refusal in a “court of competent jurisdiction.” Wilson concedes that the municipal court “lacked competence to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction over the refusal citation in light of the fact that it arose from what was factually a second-offense OWI charge.” According to Wilson, however, claim preclusion nevertheless applies based on the following premises. ¶16 Wilson first argues that, consistent with City of Cedarburg v. Hansen, 20 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF STEINKE v. Steinke
green
2 sentences2013Indeed, the court further held, "The trial court must evaluate and include the pension interest in the property division whether or not the parties present evidence on its value." Steinke v. Steinke, 126 Wis. 2d 372, 382-83 , 376 N.W.2d 839 (1985). 2013Indeed, the court further held, "The trial court must evaluate and include the pension interest in the property division whether or not the parties present evidence on its value." Steinke v. Steinke, 126 Wis. 2d 372, 382-83 , 376 N.W.2d 839 (1985). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. United Military Supply, Inc.
green
2 sentences1985Finally, with respect to the third element of the test, i.e., whether Michael’s acts were too little actuated by a purpose to serve the corporation, we concluded, “Michael testified that he used the machine to make a T-shirt for himself and his girl friend, not for sale or use in the store.” Id. 1985Finally, with respect to the third element of the test, i.e., whether Michael's acts were too little actuated by a purpose to serve the corporation, we concluded, "Michael testified that he used the machine to make a T-shirt for himself and his girl friend, not for sale or use in the store." Id. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
A Book Named \John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure\" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts"
green
2 sentences1974"We do not adopt as a constitutional standard the `utterly without redeeming social value' test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S., at 419 [ 16 L. 1974“We do not adopt as a constitutional standard the ‘utterly without redeeming social value’ test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S., at 419 [ 16 L. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.