judicially-created exceptions immunity in Wisconsin

12 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 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 (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Lodl v. Progressive Northern Insurancegreen wis · 2002 · cited in 10 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2003–2025 2 sentences 2025Governmental immunity, however, is subject to several exceptions, including (1) “the performance of ministerial duties imposed by law”; (2) “known and compelling dangers that give rise to ministerial duties on the part of public officers or employees”;4 (3) “acts involving medical discretion”; and (4) “acts that are malicious, willful, and intentional.” Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶24 . ¶22 As both the Village and the circuit court correctly recognize, when determining whether governmental immunity applies, we assume that the Village acted negligently, and we instead focus “on whether the [Village’ 2024To determine whether governmental immunity applies, we assume that the District was negligent, “focusing instead on whether the [District’s] action (or inaction) upon which 8 William does not claim that the District was negligent in its response after the May 2019 disclosure. 6 No. 2023AP382 liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies.” See Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶17 .	2	10
Kierstyn v. Racine Unified School Districtgreen wis · 1999 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 94 ; see also Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17 ("The immunity defense assumes negligence, focusing instead on whether the municipal action or inaction upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies."). 2003Co., No. 01-2953, unpublished slip op., ¶ 10 (Wis. Ct. App. July 18, 2002). [18] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 94 ; see also Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17 ("The immunity defense assumes negligence, focusing instead on whether the municipal action or inaction upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies."). [19] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 97-98 . [20] Scarpaci, 96 Wis. 2d at 686 . [21] See Protic v. Castle Co., 132 Wis. 2d 364, 369-70 , 392 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1986); Gordon v. Milwaukee County	1	2
Kimps v. Hillgreen wis · 1996 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2002–2003 2 sentences 2003Co., No. 01-2953, unpublished slip op., ¶ 10 (Wis. Ct. App. July 18, 2002). [18] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 94 ; see also Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17 ("The immunity defense assumes negligence, focusing instead on whether the municipal action or inaction upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies."). [19] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 97-98 . [20] Scarpaci, 96 Wis. 2d at 686 . [21] See Protic v. Castle Co., 132 Wis. 2d 364, 369-70 , 392 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1986); Gordon v. Milwaukee County 2003Co., No. 01-2953, unpublished slip op., ¶ 10 (Wis. Ct. App. July 18, 2002). [18] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 94 ; see also Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17 ("The immunity defense assumes negligence, focusing instead on whether the municipal action or inaction upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies."). [19] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 97-98 . [20] Scarpaci, 96 Wis. 2d at 686 . [21] See Protic v. Castle Co., 132 Wis. 2d 364, 369-70 , 392 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1986); Gordon v. Milwaukee County	1	2
Gregory E. Knoke v. City of Monroegreen wisctapp · 2020 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022In our analysis, we assume that the City was negligent, and we focus “‘on whether the municipal action (or inaction) upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies.’” Knoke, 395 Wis. 2d 551, ¶36 (quoted source omitted).	1	1
Scarpaci v. Milwaukee Countygreen wis · 1980 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003Co., No. 01-2953, unpublished slip op., ¶ 10 (Wis. Ct. App. July 18, 2002). [18] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 94 ; see also Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17 ("The immunity defense assumes negligence, focusing instead on whether the municipal action or inaction upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies."). [19] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 97-98 . [20] Scarpaci, 96 Wis. 2d at 686 . [21] See Protic v. Castle Co., 132 Wis. 2d 364, 369-70 , 392 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1986); Gordon v. Milwaukee County 2003Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 89 -90 (quoting Lister v. Bd. of Regents, 72 Wis. 2d 282, 299-300 , 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976)). [27] Id. at 89 (quoting Lister, 72 Wis. 2d at 300 ). [28] Id. at 89-90 (quoting Lister, 72 Wis. 2d at 299 ). [29] Scarpaci, 96 Wis. 2d at 682 (citing Lister, 72 Wis. 2d at 299 ). [30] Scott v. Savers Prop. & Cas.	1	1
Protic v. Castle Co.green wisctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003Co., No. 01-2953, unpublished slip op., ¶ 10 (Wis. Ct. App. July 18, 2002). [18] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 94 ; see also Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17 ("The immunity defense assumes negligence, focusing instead on whether the municipal action or inaction upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies."). [19] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 97-98 . [20] Scarpaci, 96 Wis. 2d at 686 . [21] See Protic v. Castle Co., 132 Wis. 2d 364, 369-70 , 392 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1986); Gordon v. Milwaukee County 2003Co., No. 01-2953, unpublished slip op., ¶ 10 (Wis. Ct. App. July 18, 2002). [18] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 94 ; see also Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17 ("The immunity defense assumes negligence, focusing instead on whether the municipal action or inaction upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies."). [19] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 97-98 . [20] Scarpaci, 96 Wis. 2d at 686 . [21] See Protic v. Castle Co., 132 Wis. 2d 364, 369-70 , 392 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1986); Gordon v. Milwaukee County	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 (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Hoida, Inc. v. M & I MIDSTATE BANK green wis · 2006 2 sentences 2010"The immunity defense assumes negligence, focusing instead on whether the municipal action (or inaction) upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies." Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17 . ¶ 64. "[0]ne has a duty to exercise ordinary care under the circumstances." Hoida, Inc. v. M&I Midstate Bank, 2006 WI 69, ¶ 30 , 291 Wis. 2d 283 , 717 N.W.2d 17 . 2010"The immunity defense assumes negligence, focusing instead on whether the municipal action (or inaction) upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies." Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17 . ¶ 64. "[0]ne has a duty to exercise ordinary care under the circumstances." Hoida, Inc. v. M&I Midstate Bank, 2006 WI 69, ¶ 30 , 291 Wis. 2d 283 , 717 N.W.2d 17 .	1	2010–2010
Lister v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System green wis · 1976 2 sentences 2003Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 89 -90 (quoting Lister v. Bd. of Regents, 72 Wis. 2d 282, 299-300 , 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976)). [27] Id. at 89 (quoting Lister, 72 Wis. 2d at 300 ). [28] Id. at 89-90 (quoting Lister, 72 Wis. 2d at 299 ). [29] Scarpaci, 96 Wis. 2d at 682 (citing Lister, 72 Wis. 2d at 299 ). [30] Scott v. Savers Prop. & Cas. 2003Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 89 -90 (quoting Lister v. Bd. of Regents, 72 Wis. 2d 282, 299-300 , 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976)). [27] Id. at 89 (quoting Lister, 72 Wis. 2d at 300 ). [28] Id. at 89-90 (quoting Lister, 72 Wis. 2d at 299 ). [29] Scarpaci, 96 Wis. 2d at 682 (citing Lister, 72 Wis. 2d at 299 ). [30] Scott v. Savers Prop. & Cas.	1	2003–2003
Holytz v. City of Milwaukee red wis · 1962 2 sentences 2003Co., No. 01-2953, unpublished slip op., ¶ 10 (Wis. Ct. App. July 18, 2002). [18] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 94 ; see also Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17 ("The immunity defense assumes negligence, focusing instead on whether the municipal action or inaction upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies."). [19] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 97-98 . [20] Scarpaci, 96 Wis. 2d at 686 . [21] See Protic v. Castle Co., 132 Wis. 2d 364, 369-70 , 392 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1986); Gordon v. Milwaukee County 2003Co., No. 01-2953, unpublished slip op., ¶ 10 (Wis. Ct. App. July 18, 2002). [18] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 94 ; see also Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17 ("The immunity defense assumes negligence, focusing instead on whether the municipal action or inaction upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies."). [19] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 97-98 . [20] Scarpaci, 96 Wis. 2d at 686 . [21] See Protic v. Castle Co., 132 Wis. 2d 364, 369-70 , 392 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1986); Gordon v. Milwaukee County	1	2003–2003
Gordon v. Milwaukee County green wisctapp · 1985 2 sentences 2003Co., No. 01-2953, unpublished slip op., ¶ 10 (Wis. Ct. App. July 18, 2002). [18] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 94 ; see also Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17 ("The immunity defense assumes negligence, focusing instead on whether the municipal action or inaction upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies."). [19] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 97-98 . [20] Scarpaci, 96 Wis. 2d at 686 . [21] See Protic v. Castle Co., 132 Wis. 2d 364, 369-70 , 392 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1986); Gordon v. Milwaukee County 2003Co., No. 01-2953, unpublished slip op., ¶ 10 (Wis. Ct. App. July 18, 2002). [18] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 94 ; see also Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17 ("The immunity defense assumes negligence, focusing instead on whether the municipal action or inaction upon which liability is premised is entitled to immunity under the statute, and if so, whether one of the judicially-created exceptions to immunity applies."). [19] Kierstyn, 228 Wis. 2d at 97-98 . [20] Scarpaci, 96 Wis. 2d at 686 . [21] See Protic v. Castle Co., 132 Wis. 2d 364, 369-70 , 392 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1986); Gordon v. Milwaukee County	1	2003–2003
Ottinger Ex Rel. Jassak v. Pinel green wisctapp · 1997 2 sentences 2002See Kimps v. Hill, 200 Wis. 2d 1, 11-12 , 546 N.W.2d 151 (1996); Ottinger v. Pinel, 215 Wis. 2d 266 , 572 N.W.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1997). 2002See Kimps v. Hill, 200 Wis. 2d 1, 11-12 , 546 N.W.2d 151 (1996); Ottinger v. Pinel, 215 Wis. 2d 266 , 572 N.W.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1997).	1	2002–2002

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WI § Wis. Stat. § 893.80 (12) WI § Wis. Stat. § 802.08 (8) WI § Wis. Stat. § 808.10 (5) WI § Wis. Stat. § 802.06 (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