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.
12 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wassenaar v. Panosgreen2 sentences2022As relevant here, in addressing Moreland WI’s renewed arguments regarding mitigation, the circuit court pointed out that in Wassenaar v. Panos, 111 Wis. 2d 518, 521 , 331 N.W.2d 357 (1983), the supreme court held that “where the stipulated damages clause is a valid provision for liquidated damages, the doctrine 6 Sheldon Oppermann, the landlord’s representative, stated during a deposition that a phone call with a TSI representative in February 2018 left him “not … very positive about” a deal, with TSI’s proposal being something of a “take it or leave it” proposition. 2022As relevant here, in addressing Moreland WI’s renewed arguments regarding mitigation, the circuit court pointed out that in Wassenaar v. Panos, 111 Wis. 2d 518, 521 , 331 N.W.2d 357 (1983), the supreme court held that “where the stipulated damages clause is a valid provision for liquidated damages, the doctrine 6 Sheldon Oppermann, the landlord’s representative, stated during a deposition that a phone call with a TSI representative in February 2018 left him “not … very positive about” a deal, with TSI’s proposal being something of a “take it or leave it” proposition. | 6 | 10 |
Fields Foundation, Ltd. v. Christensengreen2 sentences2006Wassenaar, 111 Wis. 2d at 525 (citing Fields Found., Ltd. v. Christensen, 103 Wis. 2d 465, 475 , 309 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1981)) (addressing the validity of a stipulated damages clause); see Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2). 2006Wassenaar, 111 Wis. 2d at 525 (citing Fields Found., Ltd. v. Christensen, 103 Wis. 2d 465, 475 , 309 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1981)) (addressing the validity of a stipulated damages clause); see Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2). | 1 | 2 |
Household Utilities, Inc. v. Andrews Co.green2 sentences2006The oral decision and written order treated the motion as written. [9] Wassenaar v. Panos, 111 Wis. 2d 518, 525 , 331 N.W.2d 357, 361 (1983); Leasefirst v. Hartford Rexall Drugs, Inc., 168 Wis. 2d 83, 88 , 483 N.W.2d 585 (Ct. App. 1992). [10] Wassenaar, 111 Wis. 2d at 525 (citing Fields Found., Ltd. v. Christensen, 103 Wis. 2d 465, 475 , 309 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1981)) (addressing the validity of a stipulated damages clause); see Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2). [11] Household Utils., Inc. v. Andrews Co., 71 Wis. 2d 17, 25 , 236 N.W.2d 663 (1976); Zubek v. Edlund, 228 Wis. 2d 783, 788 , 598 N.W.2d 273 2006The oral decision and written order treated the motion as written. [9] Wassenaar v. Panos, 111 Wis. 2d 518, 525 , 331 N.W.2d 357, 361 (1983); Leasefirst v. Hartford Rexall Drugs, Inc., 168 Wis. 2d 83, 88 , 483 N.W.2d 585 (Ct. App. 1992). [10] Wassenaar, 111 Wis. 2d at 525 (citing Fields Found., Ltd. v. Christensen, 103 Wis. 2d 465, 475 , 309 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1981)) (addressing the validity of a stipulated damages clause); see Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2). [11] Household Utils., Inc. v. Andrews Co., 71 Wis. 2d 17, 25 , 236 N.W.2d 663 (1976); Zubek v. Edlund, 228 Wis. 2d 783, 788 , 598 N.W.2d 273 | 1 | 1 |
Westhaven Associates, Ltd. v. C.C. of Madison, Inc.green2 sentences2005"The overall single test of validity is whether the clause is reasonable under the totality of circumstances." Wassenaar, 111 Wis. 2d at 526 (citations omitted); see also Westhaven Assocs., Ltd. v. C.C. of Madison, Inc., 2002 WI App 230, ¶ 17 , 257 Wis. 2d 789 , 652 N.W.2d 819 . 2005"The overall single test of validity is whether the clause is reasonable under the totality of circumstances." Wassenaar, 111 Wis. 2d at 526 (citations omitted); see also Westhaven Assocs., Ltd. v. C.C. of Madison, Inc., 2002 WI App 230, ¶ 17 , 257 Wis. 2d 789 , 652 N.W.2d 819 . | 1 | 1 |
Martinson v. Brooks Equipment Leasing, Inc.green2 sentences1985See, Martinson v. Brooks Equipment Leasing, Inc., 36 Wis. 2d 209, 222 , 152 N.W. 2d 849 , 154 N.W.2d 353 (1967). 1985See, Martinson v. Brooks Equipment Leasing, Inc., 36 Wis. 2d 209, 222 , 152 N.W. 2d 849 , 154 N.W.2d 353 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Beloit Corp.green2 sentences1985See, e.g., Smith v. Beloit Corp., 40 Wis. 2d 550, 559 , 162 N.W.2d 585 (1968). 1985See, e.g., Smith v. Beloit Corp., 40 Wis. 2d 550, 559 , 162 N.W.2d 585 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
City of Madison v. American Sanitary Engineering Co.green2 sentences1985See, e.g., Madison v. American Sanitary Engineering Co., 118 Wis. 480, 503-04 , 95 N.W. 1097 (1903). 1985See, e.g., Madison v. American Sanitary Engineering Co., 118 Wis. 480, 503-04 , 95 N.W. 1097 (1903). | 1 | 1 |
Tollefson v. Green Bay Packers, Inc.green1 sentence1983See Tollefson v. Green Bay Packers, Inc., 256 Wis. 318 , 41 N.W.2d 201 (1950). | 1 | 1 |
Tollefson v. Green Bay Packers, Inc.green1 sentence1983See Tollefson v. Green Bay Packers, Inc., 256 Wis. 318 , 41 N.W.2d 201 (1950). | 1 | 1 |
Hathaway v. Lynngreen2 sentences1983See Hathaway v. Lynn, 75 Wis. 186 , 43 N.W. 956 (1889). 21 Apparently the court *538 reasons, first, that if there is no damage, awarding stipulated damages violates the compensation principle of contract damages, and, second, that since one way to test reasonableness of stipulated damages is by comparing the estimated damages with actual harm suffered, if there is no harm the stipulated damages is automatically disproportionate to the harm. 1983See Hathaway v. Lynn, 75 Wis. 186 , 43 N.W. 956 (1889). 21 Apparently the court *538 reasons, first, that if there is no damage, awarding stipulated damages violates the compensation principle of contract damages, and, second, that since one way to test reasonableness of stipulated damages is by comparing the estimated damages with actual harm suffered, if there is no harm the stipulated damages is automatically disproportionate to the harm. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Koenings v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.
green
2 sentences2023While the “validity of the stipulated damages clause is a question of law,” Koenings v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 126 Wis. 2d 349, 358 , 377 N.W.2d 593 (1985), this court’s review begins with whether the circuit court’s exercise of discretion to deny the class action certification was erroneous, Hammetter, 399 Wis. 2d 211, ¶9 . 2023While the “validity of the stipulated damages clause is a question of law,” Koenings v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 126 Wis. 2d 349, 358 , 377 N.W.2d 593 (1985), this court’s review begins with whether the circuit court’s exercise of discretion to deny the class action certification was erroneous, Hammetter, 399 Wis. 2d 211, ¶9 . | 2 | 2005–2023 |
Derrick J. Hammetter v. Verisma Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023While the “validity of the stipulated damages clause is a question of law,” Koenings v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 126 Wis. 2d 349, 358 , 377 N.W.2d 593 (1985), this court’s review begins with whether the circuit court’s exercise of discretion to deny the class action certification was erroneous, Hammetter, 399 Wis. 2d 211, ¶9 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Leasefirst v. Hartford Rexall Drugs, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006The oral decision and written order treated the motion as written. [9] Wassenaar v. Panos, 111 Wis. 2d 518, 525 , 331 N.W.2d 357, 361 (1983); Leasefirst v. Hartford Rexall Drugs, Inc., 168 Wis. 2d 83, 88 , 483 N.W.2d 585 (Ct. App. 1992). [10] Wassenaar, 111 Wis. 2d at 525 (citing Fields Found., Ltd. v. Christensen, 103 Wis. 2d 465, 475 , 309 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1981)) (addressing the validity of a stipulated damages clause); see Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2). [11] Household Utils., Inc. v. Andrews Co., 71 Wis. 2d 17, 25 , 236 N.W.2d 663 (1976); Zubek v. Edlund, 228 Wis. 2d 783, 788 , 598 N.W.2d 273 2006The oral decision and written order treated the motion as written. [9] Wassenaar v. Panos, 111 Wis. 2d 518, 525 , 331 N.W.2d 357, 361 (1983); Leasefirst v. Hartford Rexall Drugs, Inc., 168 Wis. 2d 83, 88 , 483 N.W.2d 585 (Ct. App. 1992). [10] Wassenaar, 111 Wis. 2d at 525 (citing Fields Found., Ltd. v. Christensen, 103 Wis. 2d 465, 475 , 309 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1981)) (addressing the validity of a stipulated damages clause); see Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2). [11] Household Utils., Inc. v. Andrews Co., 71 Wis. 2d 17, 25 , 236 N.W.2d 663 (1976); Zubek v. Edlund, 228 Wis. 2d 783, 788 , 598 N.W.2d 273 | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Merten v. Nathan
green
2 sentences2006The oral decision and written order treated the motion as written. [9] Wassenaar v. Panos, 111 Wis. 2d 518, 525 , 331 N.W.2d 357, 361 (1983); Leasefirst v. Hartford Rexall Drugs, Inc., 168 Wis. 2d 83, 88 , 483 N.W.2d 585 (Ct. App. 1992). [10] Wassenaar, 111 Wis. 2d at 525 (citing Fields Found., Ltd. v. Christensen, 103 Wis. 2d 465, 475 , 309 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1981)) (addressing the validity of a stipulated damages clause); see Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2). [11] Household Utils., Inc. v. Andrews Co., 71 Wis. 2d 17, 25 , 236 N.W.2d 663 (1976); Zubek v. Edlund, 228 Wis. 2d 783, 788 , 598 N.W.2d 273 2006The oral decision and written order treated the motion as written. [9] Wassenaar v. Panos, 111 Wis. 2d 518, 525 , 331 N.W.2d 357, 361 (1983); Leasefirst v. Hartford Rexall Drugs, Inc., 168 Wis. 2d 83, 88 , 483 N.W.2d 585 (Ct. App. 1992). [10] Wassenaar, 111 Wis. 2d at 525 (citing Fields Found., Ltd. v. Christensen, 103 Wis. 2d 465, 475 , 309 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1981)) (addressing the validity of a stipulated damages clause); see Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2). [11] Household Utils., Inc. v. Andrews Co., 71 Wis. 2d 17, 25 , 236 N.W.2d 663 (1976); Zubek v. Edlund, 228 Wis. 2d 783, 788 , 598 N.W.2d 273 | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Zubek v. Edlund
green
2 sentences2006The oral decision and written order treated the motion as written. [9] Wassenaar v. Panos, 111 Wis. 2d 518, 525 , 331 N.W.2d 357, 361 (1983); Leasefirst v. Hartford Rexall Drugs, Inc., 168 Wis. 2d 83, 88 , 483 N.W.2d 585 (Ct. App. 1992). [10] Wassenaar, 111 Wis. 2d at 525 (citing Fields Found., Ltd. v. Christensen, 103 Wis. 2d 465, 475 , 309 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1981)) (addressing the validity of a stipulated damages clause); see Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2). [11] Household Utils., Inc. v. Andrews Co., 71 Wis. 2d 17, 25 , 236 N.W.2d 663 (1976); Zubek v. Edlund, 228 Wis. 2d 783, 788 , 598 N.W.2d 273 2006The oral decision and written order treated the motion as written. [9] Wassenaar v. Panos, 111 Wis. 2d 518, 525 , 331 N.W.2d 357, 361 (1983); Leasefirst v. Hartford Rexall Drugs, Inc., 168 Wis. 2d 83, 88 , 483 N.W.2d 585 (Ct. App. 1992). [10] Wassenaar, 111 Wis. 2d at 525 (citing Fields Found., Ltd. v. Christensen, 103 Wis. 2d 465, 475 , 309 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1981)) (addressing the validity of a stipulated damages clause); see Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2). [11] Household Utils., Inc. v. Andrews Co., 71 Wis. 2d 17, 25 , 236 N.W.2d 663 (1976); Zubek v. Edlund, 228 Wis. 2d 783, 788 , 598 N.W.2d 273 | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Northwestern Motor Car, Inc. v. Pope
green
2 sentences1983North *540 western Motor Car, Inc. v. Pope, 51 Wis. 2d 292, 295 , 187 N.W.2d 200 (1971). 1983North *540 western Motor Car, Inc. v. Pope, 51 Wis. 2d 292, 295 , 187 N.W.2d 200 (1971). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Seeman v. Biemann
green
2 sentences1983See, e.g., Fields Foundation, Ltd. v. Christensen, 103 Wis. 2d 465, 475-76 , 309 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1981); Seeman v. Biemann, 108 Wis. 365, 374-75 , 84 N.W. 490 (1900). *533 As the above discussion demonstrates, the various factors and approaches to determine reasonableness are not separate tests, each of which must be satisfied for a stipulated damages clause to stand. 1983See, e.g., Fields Foundation, Ltd. v. Christensen, 103 Wis. 2d 465, 475-76 , 309 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1981); Seeman v. Biemann, 108 Wis. 365, 374-75 , 84 N.W. 490 (1900). *533 As the above discussion demonstrates, the various factors and approaches to determine reasonableness are not separate tests, each of which must be satisfied for a stipulated damages clause to stand. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.