claim preclusion provides that a final doctrine in Wisconsin

12 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Northern States Power Co. v. Bughergreen wis · 1995 · cited in 3 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2018–2025 2 sentences 2019Northern States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 551 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995). ¶25 “The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits in one action bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions, or occurrences.” Kruckenberg v. Harvey, 2005 WI 43, ¶19 , 279 Wis. 2d 520 , 694 N.W.2d 879 . 2019Northern States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 551 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995). ¶25 “The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits in one action bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions, or occurrences.” Kruckenberg v. Harvey, 2005 WI 43, ¶19 , 279 Wis. 2d 520 , 694 N.W.2d 879 .	1	3
Pasko v. City of Milwaukeegreen wis · 2002 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022A party offering this defense must prove each of three elements: “(1) an identity between the parties or their privies in the prior and present lawsuits; (2) an identity of the causes of action in the two lawsuits; and (3) a final judgment on the merits in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Id., ¶25; see also Pasko v. City of Milwaukee, 2002 WI 33, ¶16 , 252 Wis. 2d 1 , 643 N.W.2d 72 (party asserting claim preclusion bears the burden of proof on each element). dismissal decisions for the separate reasons explained in the text of this opinion, without reference of § 806.07. 12 No. 2021AP448 ¶2 2022A party offering this defense must prove each of three elements: “(1) an identity between the parties or their privies in the prior and present lawsuits; (2) an identity of the causes of action in the two lawsuits; and (3) a final judgment on the merits in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Id., ¶25; see also Pasko v. City of Milwaukee, 2002 WI 33, ¶16 , 252 Wis. 2d 1 , 643 N.W.2d 72 (party asserting claim preclusion bears the burden of proof on each element). dismissal decisions for the separate reasons explained in the text of this opinion, without reference of § 806.07. 12 No. 2021AP448 ¶2	1	1
John Teske v. Wilson Mutual Insurance Companygreen wis · 2019 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019Co., 2019 WI 62, ¶20 , 387 Wis. 2d 213 , 928 N.W.2d 555 . ¶28 “The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions or occurrences.” Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 230 Wis. 2d 212, 233 , 601 N.W.2d 627 (1999). 2019Co., 2019 WI 62, ¶20 , 387 Wis. 2d 213 , 928 N.W.2d 555 . ¶28 “The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions or occurrences.” Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 230 Wis. 2d 212, 233 , 601 N.W.2d 627 (1999).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Kruckenberg v. Harvey green wis · 2005 2 sentences 2025Given our determination that the court properly granted summary judgment to the Village based on claim preclusion, we will only address Goeben’s arguments related to that issue. ¶9 “The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits in one action bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions, or occurrences.” Kruckenberg v. Harvey, 2005 WI 43, ¶19 , 279 Wis. 2d 520 , 694 N.W.2d 879 . 2025Given our determination that the court properly granted summary judgment to the Village based on claim preclusion, we will only address Goeben’s arguments related to that issue. ¶9 “The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits in one action bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions, or occurrences.” Kruckenberg v. Harvey, 2005 WI 43, ¶19 , 279 Wis. 2d 520 , 694 N.W.2d 879 .	7	2018–2025
Lindas v. Cady green wis · 1994 2 sentences 2018A. Applicable Law. ¶30 "The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits in one action bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions, or occurrences." Kruckenberg v. Harvey , 2005 WI 43 , ¶19, 279 Wis. 2d 520 , 694 N.W.2d 879 . "[U]nder claim preclusion, 'a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings. ' " Bugher , 189 Wis. 2d at 550 (quoting Lindas v. Cady , 183 Wis. 2d 547 , 558, 2018A. Applicable Law. ¶30 "The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits in one action bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions, or occurrences." Kruckenberg v. Harvey , 2005 WI 43 , ¶19, 279 Wis. 2d 520 , 694 N.W.2d 879 . "[U]nder claim preclusion, 'a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings. ' " Bugher , 189 Wis. 2d at 550 (quoting Lindas v. Cady , 183 Wis. 2d 547 , 558,	3	2018–2019
Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. green wis · 1999 2 sentences 2019Co., 2019 WI 62, ¶20 , 387 Wis. 2d 213 , 928 N.W.2d 555 . ¶28 “The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions or occurrences.” Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 230 Wis. 2d 212, 233 , 601 N.W.2d 627 (1999). 2019Co., 2019 WI 62, ¶20 , 387 Wis. 2d 213 , 928 N.W.2d 555 . ¶28 “The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions or occurrences.” Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 230 Wis. 2d 212, 233 , 601 N.W.2d 627 (1999).	2	2001–2019
State v. Miller green wisctapp · 2004 2 sentences 2024State v. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, ¶25 , 274 Wis. 2d 471 , 683 N.W.2d 485 . ¶14 Our supreme court has explained application of the doctrine of claim preclusion as follows: The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits in one action bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions, or occurrences. 2024State v. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, ¶25 , 274 Wis. 2d 471 , 683 N.W.2d 485 . ¶14 Our supreme court has explained application of the doctrine of claim preclusion as follows: The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits in one action bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions, or occurrences.	1	2024–2024
Wisconsin Public Service Corp. v. Arby Construction, Inc. green wis · 2012 2 sentences 2018Id. , ¶ 30. ¶ 14 The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment "is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceeding." Id. , ¶ 33 (citation omitted). 2018Id. , ¶ 30. ¶ 14 The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment "is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceeding." Id. , ¶ 33 (citation omitted).	1	2018–2018
Allen v. McCurry green scotus · 1980 1 sentence 2018A. Applicable Law. ¶30 "The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits in one action bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions, or occurrences." Kruckenberg v. Harvey , 2005 WI 43 , ¶19, 279 Wis. 2d 520 , 694 N.W.2d 879 . "[U]nder claim preclusion, 'a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings. ' " Bugher , 189 Wis. 2d at 550 (quoting Lindas v. Cady , 183 Wis. 2d 547 , 558,	1	2018–2018

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WI § Wis. Stat. § 802.08 (6) WI § Wis. Stat. § 808.10 (6) WI § Wis. Stat. § 32.06 (3) WI § Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (3) WI § Wis. Stat. § 82.03 (3) WI § Wis. Stat. § 82.50 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check