12 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2green2 sentences2024See Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 2012 WI 31, ¶25 , 339 Wis. 2d 493 , 811 N.W.2d 756 (“[A] defendant’s actual notice of an action is not alone enough to confer personal jurisdiction upon the court; rather, ‘[s]ervice must be made in accordance with the manner prescribed by statute.’” (citation omitted)). 2024See Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 2012 WI 31, ¶25 , 339 Wis. 2d 493 , 811 N.W.2d 756 (“[A] defendant’s actual notice of an action is not alone enough to confer personal jurisdiction upon the court; rather, ‘[s]ervice must be made in accordance with the manner prescribed by statute.’” (citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Loppnow v. Bielikgreen1 sentence2024This was the end of Petitioner’s attempts at personal service prior to the injunction hearing.11 At this point, Petitioner had not exhausted all “leads or information reasonably calculated to make personal service possible.” See Loppnow, 324 Wis. 2d 803, ¶10 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ndinagreen2 sentences2024See State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, ¶30 , 315 Wis. 2d 653 , 761 N.W.2d 612 . 2024See State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, ¶30 , 315 Wis. 2d 653 , 761 N.W.2d 612 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Killorygreen2 sentences2016In light of Wisconsin's strong and long-standing interest in the protection and well-being of its minors, see, e.g., State v. Killory, 73 Wis. 2d 400, 407 , 243 N.W.2d 475 (1976) (" [t]he state has the right to enact reasonable legislation to protect the safety and well-being of minors"), we conclude that interpreting these statutes in a manner that would allow a respondent to undercut the purpose of the statute would be unreasonable. ¶ 39. 2016In light of Wisconsin's strong and long-standing interest in the protection and well-being of its minors, see, e.g., State v. Killory, 73 Wis. 2d 400, 407 , 243 N.W.2d 475 (1976) (" [t]he state has the right to enact reasonable legislation to protect the safety and well-being of minors"), we conclude that interpreting these statutes in a manner that would allow a respondent to undercut the purpose of the statute would be unreasonable. ¶ 39. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Paternity of CAS & CDSgreen2 sentences1997See In re C.A.S., 185 Wis. 2d 468 , 482, 518 N.W.2d 285 , 289 (Ct. App. 1994). 1997See In re C.A.S., 185 Wis. 2d 468 , 482, 518 N.W.2d 285 , 289 (Ct. App. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Frank M. Calvert
neutral
1 sentence2025Calvert, 382 Wis. 2d 354, ¶¶6-8 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Village of Big Bend v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2025In a criminal case, a defendant’s liberty is at stake, and the prosecutorial force of the state is involved.”) Rather, “the client’s remedy in a civil case is a suit for malpractice.” See id. at 406 . ¶13 Regarding Strauss’s argument that Exhibit #2 should not have been admitted, we conclude this issue has been waived because there was no objection at the injunction hearing. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Cole
green
2 sentences2025“Generally, a party must make an objection in the [trial] court in order to preserve the issue for appeal.” State v. Cole, 2008 WI App 178, ¶33 , 315 Wis. 2d 75 , 762 N.W.2d 711 . 2025“Generally, a party must make an objection in the [trial] court in order to preserve the issue for appeal.” State v. Cole, 2008 WI App 178, ¶33 , 315 Wis. 2d 75 , 762 N.W.2d 711 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
West v. West
green
2 sentences2024Wisconsin courts have treated the term “due diligence” synonymously with the term “reasonable diligence,” see West v. West, 82 Wis. 2d 158, 167 , 262 N.W.2d 87 (1978), and we use the term “reasonable diligence” for the purposes of our discussion. ¶21 In the event that the petitioner has not served the respondent prior to the injunction hearing despite exercising “due diligence” in attempting to do so, (c) If with reasonable diligence the defendant cannot be served under par. (a) or (b), service may be made by publication of the summons as a class 3 notice, under ch. 985, and by mailing. 2024Wisconsin courts have treated the term “due diligence” synonymously with the term “reasonable diligence,” see West v. West, 82 Wis. 2d 158, 167 , 262 N.W.2d 87 (1978), and we use the term “reasonable diligence” for the purposes of our discussion. ¶21 In the event that the petitioner has not served the respondent prior to the injunction hearing despite exercising “due diligence” in attempting to do so, (c) If with reasonable diligence the defendant cannot be served under par. (a) or (b), service may be made by publication of the summons as a class 3 notice, under ch. 985, and by mailing. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Tiepelman
green
2 sentences2023Citing State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66 , 291 Wis. 2d 179 , 717 N.W.2d 1 , Gabler argued that because the circuit court had determined that the initial TRO should not have been entered against him and had vacated the harassment injunction, the court had “unknowingly considered inaccurate information about the nature of the supposed violation of the temporary restraining order and the level of culpability [Gabler] had in attempting contact with [Evelyn] on April 30, 2020” when it declined to order expungement at Gabler’s sentencing hearing. 2023Citing State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66 , 291 Wis. 2d 179 , 717 N.W.2d 1 , Gabler argued that because the circuit court had determined that the initial TRO should not have been entered against him and had vacated the harassment injunction, the court had “unknowingly considered inaccurate information about the nature of the supposed violation of the temporary restraining order and the level of culpability [Gabler] had in attempting contact with [Evelyn] on April 30, 2020” when it declined to order expungement at Gabler’s sentencing hearing. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Cogswell v. Robertshaw Controls Co.
green
2 sentences2020Cogswell v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 87 Wis. 2d 243, 250 , 274 N.W.2d 647 (1979). ¶13 In all, the transcript of the injunction hearing shows by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a substantial risk Higgins may commit an intentional homicide against Dorothy. 2020Cogswell v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 87 Wis. 2d 243, 250 , 274 N.W.2d 647 (1979). ¶13 In all, the transcript of the injunction hearing shows by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a substantial risk Higgins may commit an intentional homicide against Dorothy. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Kohler Co. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations
green
2 sentences2020Such right to expunge a void order or judgment is not limited by statutory requirements for re-opening, appealing from, or modifying orders or judgments.” Kohler Co. v. DILHR, 81 Wis. 2d 11, 25 , 259 N.W.2d 695 (1977). ¶13 Here, Lins’ appellate argument concerning the injunction granted in favor of Summerhill rests on his assertion that there was insufficient evidence introduced at the injunction hearing to support the injunction in the first instance. 2020Such right to expunge a void order or judgment is not limited by statutory requirements for re-opening, appealing from, or modifying orders or judgments.” Kohler Co. v. DILHR, 81 Wis. 2d 11, 25 , 259 N.W.2d 695 (1977). ¶13 Here, Lins’ appellate argument concerning the injunction granted in favor of Summerhill rests on his assertion that there was insufficient evidence introduced at the injunction hearing to support the injunction in the first instance. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Martindale v. Ripp
green
1 sentence2018We "will uphold a decision to admit or exclude evidence if the circuit court examined the relevant facts, applied a proper legal standard, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a reasonable conclusion." Id. ¶11 County social worker Harteau testified at the injunction hearing about an attempted welfare check of Suzanne in her home in July 2015, as the County had received "multiple calls" regarding Suzanne's health and safety. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Wussow v. Gaida
green
2 sentences2007Wussow sought an injunction to bar such use, claiming that Gaida was forceably taking Wussow's rights under the contract and causing him "great loss in profits and earnings." Id. 2007Wussow sought an injunction to bar such use, claiming that Gaida was forceably taking Wussow's rights under the contract and causing him "great loss in profits and earnings." Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Bachowski v. Salamone
green
2 sentences1988Bachowski, 139 Wis. 2d at 405 , 407 N.W.2d at 536 . 1988Bachowski, 139 Wis. 2d at 405 , 407 N.W.2d at 536 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.