81 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2025 27 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Countygreen2 sentences2025Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58 , 271 Wis. 2d 633 , 681 N.W.2d 110 , and may be used as part of a plain-meaning analysis of an unambiguous statute. 2025Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58 , 271 Wis. 2d 633 , 681 N.W.2d 110 , and may be used as part of a plain-meaning analysis of an unambiguous statute. | 7 | 22 |
City of Madison v. Town of Fitchburggreen2 sentences1986The alternative plain meaning rule adopted in City of Madison v. Town of Fitchburg, 112 Wis. 2d 224, 236 , 332 N.W.2d 782, 787 (1983), leads to the same result. 1986The alternative plain meaning rule adopted in City of Madison v. Town of Fitchburg, 112 Wis. 2d 224, 236 , 332 N.W.2d 782, 787 (1983), leads to the same result. | 6 | 6 |
County of Dane v. Labor & Industry Review Commissiongreen2 sentences2023A review of statutory history can be part of a plain meaning analysis “because it is part of the context in which we interpret statutory terms.” County of Dane v. LIRC, 2009 WI 9, ¶27 , 315 Wis. 2d 293 , 759 N.W.2d 571 (quoting Richards v. Badger Mut. 2023A review of statutory history can be part of a plain meaning analysis “because it is part of the context in which we interpret statutory terms.” County of Dane v. LIRC, 2009 WI 9, ¶27 , 315 Wis. 2d 293 , 759 N.W.2d 571 (quoting Richards v. Badger Mut. | 5 | 11 |
United States v. Dickersongreen2 sentences1992But more importantly it should be noted that the primary purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the legislature's intent, and that this court has recognized exceptions to the plain meaning rule — both when persuasive legislative history indicates a contrary legislative intent, Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board v. Hervey, 113 Wis. 2d 634 , 641 n. 9, 335 N.W.2d 607 (1983), quoting United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 562 (1940), and when an "absurd or unreasonable result" would be effected by merely applying the plain meaning rule. 1992But more importantly it should be noted that the primary purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the legislature's intent, and that this court has recognized exceptions to the plain meaning ruleboth when persuasive legislative history indicates a contrary legislative intent, Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board v. Hervey, 113 Wis. 2d 634 , 641 n. 9, 335 N.W.2d 607 (1983), quoting United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 562 (1940), and when an "absurd or unreasonable result" would be effected by merely applying the plain meaning rule. | 4 | 4 |
United States v. Dennis Franklingreen2 sentences2020See United States v. Franklin, 2019 WI 64, ¶13 , 387 Wis. 2d 259 , 928 N.W.2d 545 (quoted source omitted) ("Evaluation of the context of a statute is part of a plain-meaning analysis and includes a review of . . . 'previously enacted and repealed provisions of a statute.'"). 2020See United States v. Franklin, 2019 WI 64, ¶13 , 387 Wis. 2d 259 , 928 N.W.2d 545 (quoted source omitted) ("Evaluation of the context of a statute is part of a plain-meaning analysis and includes a review of . . . 'previously enacted and repealed provisions of a statute.'"). | 3 | 4 |
Elliot Brey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companygreen2 sentences2025But a “statute's context and structure are” likewise “critical to a proper plain- meaning analysis.” Brey, 400 Wis. 2d 417, ¶11 . 2024Co., 2022 WI 7, ¶11 , 400 Wis. 2d 417 , 970 N.W.2d 1 ("A statute's context and structure are critical to a proper plain-meaning analysis.") ¶39 "'If this process of ascertainment yields a plain, clear statutory meaning, then there is no ambiguity, and the statute is applied according to this ascertainment of its meaning.'" Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶46 (quoting Bruno, 260 Wis. 2d 633, ¶20 ). | 2 | 4 |
Johnson v. City of Edgertongreen2 sentences2020See Johnson v. City of Edgerton, 207 Wis. 2d 343, 351 , 558 N.W.2d 653 (Ct. App. 1996) ("When the Legislature uses different terms in a statute——particularly in the same section——we presume it intended the terms to have distinct meanings."). ¶141 The statutory history of Wis. Stat. § 252.02 (4), part of a plain meaning analysis, confirms the authority of DHS to issue orders applicable to the whole of Wisconsin separate and apart from rules. 2020See Johnson v. City of Edgerton, 207 Wis. 2d 343, 351 , 558 N.W.2d 653 (Ct. App. 1996) ("When the Legislature uses different terms in a statute——particularly in the same section——we presume it intended the terms to have distinct meanings."). ¶141 The statutory history of Wis. Stat. § 252.02 (4), part of a plain meaning analysis, confirms the authority of DHS to issue orders applicable to the whole of Wisconsin separate and apart from rules. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gilbertgreen2 sentences2013See State v. Gilbert, 2012 WI 72, ¶ 16 , 342 Wis. 2d 82 , 816 N.W.2d 215 ("[A] review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 568 U.S._, 133 S. Ct. 560 (2012). 2013See State v. Gilbert, 2012 WI 72, ¶ 16 , 342 Wis. 2d 82 , 816 N.W.2d 215 ("[A] review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 568 U.S._, 133 S. Ct. 560 (2012). | 2 | 2 |
Gladden v. Department of Commercegreen2 sentences2013See State v. Gilbert, 2012 WI 72, ¶ 16 , 342 Wis. 2d 82 , 816 N.W.2d 215 ("[A] review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 568 U.S._, 133 S. Ct. 560 (2012). 2013See State v. Gilbert, 2012 WI 72, ¶16 , 342 Wis. 2d 82 , 816 N.W.2d 215 ("[A] review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 568 U.S. __ , 133 S. Ct. 560 (2012). | 2 | 2 |
Richards v. Badger Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2025Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶22 , 309 Wis. 2d 541 , 749 N.W.2d 581 (“[a] review of statutory history,” which “encompasses the previously enacted and repealed provisions of a statute,” is “part of a plain meaning analysis”). ¶34 At times, Gonfiantini seems to suggest that we can or should interpret the statutes differently “under the facts of this case,” where the application of the rule determines the outcome of the election and a different rule would produce a different result. 2025Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶22 , 309 Wis. 2d 541 , 749 N.W.2d 581 (“[a] review of statutory history,” which “encompasses the previously enacted and repealed provisions of a statute,” is “part of a plain meaning analysis”). ¶34 At times, Gonfiantini seems to suggest that we can or should interpret the statutes differently “under the facts of this case,” where the application of the rule determines the outcome of the election and a different rule would produce a different result. | 1 | 6 |
State v. Sotogreen2 sentences2024“Additionally, a plain meaning analysis may look to statutory context and structure.” State v. Soto, 2012 WI 93, ¶20 , 343 Wis. 2d 43 , 817 N.W.2d 848 . 2024“Additionally, a plain meaning analysis may look to statutory context and structure.” State v. Soto, 2012 WI 93, ¶20 , 343 Wis. 2d 43 , 817 N.W.2d 848 . | 1 | 4 |
Melissa Anderson v. Thomas Aulgreen2 sentences2017I conclude that the City of Madison does not fall within the definition of "person" for the purposes of Wis. Stat. chapter 135. 22 See Anderson v. Aul, 2015 WI 19, ¶114 , 361 Wis. 2d 63 , 862 N.W.2d 304 (Ziegler, J., concurring) (asserting that the plain meaning analysis includes consideration of consequences of alternative interpretations to avoid unreasonable results). 21 No. 2015AP2366.ssa ¶138 Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court and the decision of the court of appeals but on the ground that the Fair Dealership Law does not apply to the City of Madison. ¶139 I am 2017I conclude that the City of Madison does not fall within the definition of "person" for the purposes of Wis. Stat. chapter 135. 22 See Anderson v. Aul, 2015 WI 19, ¶114 , 361 Wis. 2d 63 , 862 N.W.2d 304 (Ziegler, J., concurring) (asserting that the plain meaning analysis includes consideration of consequences of alternative interpretations to avoid unreasonable results). 21 No. 2015AP2366.ssa ¶138 Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court and the decision of the court of appeals but on the ground that the Fair Dealership Law does not apply to the City of Madison. ¶139 I am | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hayesgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Hayes, 2004 WI 80, ¶109 , 273 Wis. 2d 1 , 681 N.W.2d 203 (Sykes, J., concurring) (citing Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633 , ¶¶50–51). 2025See State v. Hayes, 2004 WI 80, ¶109 , 273 Wis. 2d 1 , 681 N.W.2d 203 (Sykes, J., concurring) (citing Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633 , ¶¶50–51). | 1 | 1 |
WCRIS v. Janel Heinrichgreen2 sentences2023See James v. Heinrich, 2021 WI 58 , ¶76, 397 Wis. 2d 517 , 14 960 N.W.2d 350 (Dallet, J., dissenting). 19 No. 2020AP1213-CR Legacy of Justice Scalia, 66 Case W. 2023See James v. Heinrich, 2021 WI 58 , ¶26, 397 Wis. 2d 517 , 960 N.W.2d 350 (explaining extrinsic sources are sometimes considered to confirm a plain-meaning analysis (citing State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Kannenberg v. Labor & Industry Review Commissiongreen2 sentences2023Id., ¶32 (“[A] provision can be 12 No. 2022AP13 construed ‘liberally’ as opposed to ‘strictly’ only when there is some ambiguity to construe.”); Kannenberg v. LIRC, 213 Wis. 2d 373, 393 , 571 N.W.2d 165 (Ct. App. 1997) (“When statutory language is ambiguous and a choice must be made between two reasonable interpretations, one of the factors to consider in making this choice, if the statute is remedial in nature, is that it is to be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purpose.”). ¶27 As explained in the following analysis, we conclude that the pertinent portions of WIS. 2023Id., ¶32 (“[A] provision can be 12 No. 2022AP13 construed ‘liberally’ as opposed to ‘strictly’ only when there is some ambiguity to construe.”); Kannenberg v. LIRC, 213 Wis. 2d 373, 393 , 571 N.W.2d 165 (Ct. App. 1997) (“When statutory language is ambiguous and a choice must be made between two reasonable interpretations, one of the factors to consider in making this choice, if the statute is remedial in nature, is that it is to be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purpose.”). ¶27 As explained in the following analysis, we conclude that the pertinent portions of WIS. | 1 | 1 |
| Enbridge Energy Company, Inc. v. Dane Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Interest of Angel Lace M.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Madisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jensengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hansongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hughes v. Chrysler Motors Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ellisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Courchesnegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Connecticut National Bank v. Germaingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Jvc Company of America, Division of Us Jvc Corporation v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Perrin v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. County of Crawfordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Moniagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Milwaukee County v. Wisconsin Council on Criminal Justicegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bruno v. Milwaukee County
green
2 sentences2024Co., 2022 WI 7, ¶11 , 400 Wis. 2d 417 , 970 N.W.2d 1 ("A statute's context and structure are critical to a proper plain-meaning analysis.") ¶39 "'If this process of ascertainment yields a plain, clear statutory meaning, then there is no ambiguity, and the statute is applied according to this ascertainment of its meaning.'" Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶46 (quoting Bruno, 260 Wis. 2d 633, ¶20 ). 2024Co., 2022 WI 7, ¶11 , 400 Wis. 2d 417 , 970 N.W.2d 1 ("A statute's context and structure are critical to a proper plain-meaning analysis.") ¶39 "'If this process of ascertainment yields a plain, clear statutory meaning, then there is no ambiguity, and the statute is applied according to this ascertainment of its meaning.'" Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶46 (quoting Bruno, 260 Wis. 2d 633, ¶20 ). | 4 | 2003–2024 |
Jere Fabick v. Tony Evers
green
2 sentences2023Further, statutory history “is part of a plain meaning analysis” and “encompasses the previously enacted and repealed provisions of a statute.” Fabick 7 Nos. 2022AP658-CR 2022AP659-CR 2022AP661-CR 2022AP662-CR 2022AP663-CR v. Evers, 2021 WI 28 , ¶30 n.12, 396 Wis. 2d 231 , 956 N.W.2d 856 (citation omitted). 2023Further, statutory history “is part of a plain meaning analysis” and “encompasses the previously enacted and repealed provisions of a statute.” Fabick 7 Nos. 2022AP658-CR 2022AP659-CR 2022AP661-CR 2022AP662-CR 2022AP663-CR v. Evers, 2021 WI 28 , ¶30 n.12, 396 Wis. 2d 231 , 956 N.W.2d 856 (citation omitted). | 3 | 2021–2023 |
State v. Jose Alberto Reyes Fuerte
green
2 sentences2022"Statutes are closely related when they are in the same chapter, reference one another, or use similar terms." State v. Reyes Fuerte, 2017 WI 104, ¶27 , 378 Wis. 2d 504 , 904 N.W.2d 773 (citing City of Janesville v. CC Midwest, Inc., 2007 WI 93, ¶24 , 302 Wis. 2d 599 , 734 N.W.2d 428 ). ¶49 It is consistent with the plain-meaning rule "to consider the intrinsic context in which statutory language is used; a plain-meaning interpretation cannot contravene a textually or contextually manifest statutory purpose." Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶49 . 2022"Statutes are closely related when they are in the same chapter, reference one another, or use similar terms." State v. Reyes Fuerte, 2017 WI 104, ¶27 , 378 Wis. 2d 504 , 904 N.W.2d 773 (citing City of Janesville v. CC Midwest, Inc., 2007 WI 93, ¶24 , 302 Wis. 2d 599 , 734 N.W.2d 428 ). ¶49 It is consistent with the plain-meaning rule "to consider the intrinsic context in which statutory language is used; a plain-meaning interpretation cannot contravene a textually or contextually manifest statutory purpose." Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶49 . | 3 | 2021–2022 |
State ex rel. Raymer v. Cunningham
green
2 sentences2019Raymer v. Cunningham , 82 Wis. 39 , 51 N.W. 1133 , 51 N.W. 1133 (1892), the SPI directed the Secretary of State to pay him more than his $1,200 salary, plus the expenses actually incurred for his clerk's salary and actual travel costs. 2019Raymer v. Cunningham , 82 Wis. 39 , 51 N.W. 1133 , 51 N.W. 1133 (1892), the SPI directed the Secretary of State to pay him more than his $1,200 salary, plus the expenses actually incurred for his clerk's salary and actual travel costs. | 3 | 2019–2019 |
State Higher Educational Aids Board v. Hervey
green
2 sentences1992But more importantly it should be noted that the primary purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the legislature's intent, and that this court has recognized exceptions to the plain meaning rule — both when persuasive legislative history indicates a contrary legislative intent, Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board v. Hervey, 113 Wis. 2d 634 , 641 n. 9, 335 N.W.2d 607 (1983), quoting United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 562 (1940), and when an "absurd or unreasonable result" would be effected by merely applying the plain meaning rule. 1992But more importantly it should be noted that the primary purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the legislature's intent, and that this court has recognized exceptions to the plain meaning rule — both when persuasive legislative history indicates a contrary legislative intent, Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board v. Hervey, 113 Wis. 2d 634 , 641 n. 9, 335 N.W.2d 607 (1983), quoting United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 562 (1940), and when an "absurd or unreasonable result" would be effected by merely applying the plain meaning rule. | 3 | 1985–1992 |
State ex rel. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. Henry
green
2 sentences2025We engaged in a plain-meaning analysis of the text to determine whether the governor could veto portions of a policy proposal or only entire legislative policy proposals called “items.” Id. at 310–11. 2025We engaged in a plain-meaning analysis of the text to determine whether the governor could veto portions of a policy proposal or only entire legislative policy proposals called “items.” Id. at 310–11. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
City of Janesville v. CC Midwest, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022"Statutes are closely related when they are in the same chapter, reference one another, or use similar terms." State v. Reyes Fuerte, 2017 WI 104, ¶27 , 378 Wis. 2d 504 , 904 N.W.2d 773 (citing City of Janesville v. CC Midwest, Inc., 2007 WI 93, ¶24 , 302 Wis. 2d 599 , 734 N.W.2d 428 ). ¶49 It is consistent with the plain-meaning rule "to consider the intrinsic context in which statutory language is used; a plain-meaning interpretation cannot contravene a textually or contextually manifest statutory purpose." Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶49 . 2022"Statutes are closely related when they are in the same chapter, reference one another, or use similar terms." State v. Reyes Fuerte, 2017 WI 104, ¶27 , 378 Wis. 2d 504 , 904 N.W.2d 773 (citing City of Janesville v. CC Midwest, Inc., 2007 WI 93, ¶24 , 302 Wis. 2d 599 , 734 N.W.2d 428 ). ¶49 It is consistent with the plain-meaning rule "to consider the intrinsic context in which statutory language is used; a plain-meaning interpretation cannot contravene a textually or contextually manifest statutory purpose." Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶49 . | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2015Co., 2009 WI 27, ¶ 15 , 316 Wis. 2d 47 , 762 N.W.2d 652 (relying on statutory history to confirm a statute's plain meaning); Cnty. of Dane, 315 Wis. 2d 293, ¶ 27 (explaining that statutory history is part of a plain-meaning analysis). ¶ 112. 2015Co., 2009 WI 27, ¶ 15 , 316 Wis. 2d 47 , 762 N.W.2d 652 (relying on statutory history to confirm a statute's plain meaning); Cnty. of Dane, 315 Wis. 2d 293, ¶ 27 (explaining that statutory history is part of a plain-meaning analysis). ¶ 112. | 2 | 2012–2015 |
State v. Peters
green
2 sentences2009In State v. Peters, 2003 WI 88, ¶ 14 , 263 Wis. 2d 475 , 665 N.W.2d 171 , for example, this court characterized the plain meaning analysis as follows: "If the language of a statute is clear on its face, we need not look any further than the statutory text to determine the statute's meaning." See also State ex rel. 2009In State v. Peters, 2003 WI 88, ¶ 14 , 263 Wis. 2d 475 , 665 N.W.2d 171 , for example, this court characterized the plain meaning analysis as follows: "If the language of a statute is clear on its face, we need not look any further than the statutory text to determine the statute's meaning." See also State ex rel. | 2 | 2003–2009 |
State v. Byers
green
2 sentences2006Soc'y, 2003 WI 87, ¶ 43 , 263 Wis. 2d 207 , 655 N.W.2d 181 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring) ("[T]his is another case in which the court mouths the exclusive plain meaning rule and then properly looks beyond the 'plain language' of the statute without finding that the statutory language is ambiguous." (footnote omitted)); id., ¶ 53 (Bablitch, J., concurring) (advocating the use of any useful and available information regarding legislative intent); State v. Byers, 2003 WI 86, ¶¶ 46-47 , 263 Wis.2d 113 , 665 N.W.2d 729 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring) ("Even a casual observer of the Wisconsin cases w 2006Soc'y, 2003 WI 87, ¶ 43 , 263 Wis. 2d 207 , 655 N.W.2d 181 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring) ("[T]his is another case in which the court mouths the exclusive plain meaning rule and then properly looks beyond the 'plain language' of the statute without finding that the statutory language is ambiguous." (footnote omitted)); id., ¶ 53 (Bablitch, J., concurring) (advocating the use of any useful and available information regarding legislative intent); State v. Byers, 2003 WI 86, ¶¶ 46-47 , 263 Wis.2d 113 , 665 N.W.2d 729 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring) ("Even a casual observer of the Wisconsin cases w | 2 | 2003–2006 |
State v. Sample
green
2 sentences2003For discussions and criticisms of the plain meaning rule in Wisconsin, see, e.g., State v. Peters, 2003 WI 88 , 263 Wis. 2d 475 , 665 N.W.2d 171 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring); State v. Byers, 2003 WI 86 , 263 Wis. 2d 113 , 665 N.W.2d 729 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring; Crooks, J., dissenting); State v. Davison, 2003 WI 89 , 263 Wis. 2d 146 , 666 N.W.2d 1 ; Bruno v. Milwaukee County, 2003 WI 28 , 260 Wis. 2d 633 , 600 N.W.2d 656 ; State v. Delaney, 2003 WI 9, ¶¶ 38-40 , 259 Wis. 2d 77 , 658 N.W.2d 416 (Abrahamson, C.J., dissenting); State v. Sample, 215 Wis. 2d 487, 508 , 573 N.W.2d 187 (1998) 2003For discussions and criticisms of the plain meaning rule in Wisconsin, see, e.g., State v. Peters, 2003 WI 88 , 263 Wis. 2d 475 , 665 N.W.2d 171 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring); State v. Byers, 2003 WI 86 , 263 Wis. 2d 113 , 665 N.W.2d 729 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring; Crooks, J., dissenting); State v. Davison, 2003 WI 89 , 263 Wis. 2d 146 , 666 N.W.2d 1 ; Bruno v. Milwaukee County, 2003 WI 28 , 260 Wis. 2d 633 , 600 N.W.2d 656 ; State v. Delaney, 2003 WI 9, ¶¶ 38-40 , 259 Wis. 2d 77 , 658 N.W.2d 416 (Abrahamson, C.J., dissenting); State v. Sample, 215 Wis. 2d 487, 508 , 573 N.W.2d 187 (1998) | 2 | 2003–2006 |
State v. Delaney
green
2 sentences2006Soc'y, 2003 WI 87, ¶ 43 , 263 Wis. 2d 207 , 655 N.W.2d 181 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring) ("[T]his is another case in which the court mouths the exclusive plain meaning rule and then properly looks beyond the 'plain language' of the statute without finding that the statutory language is ambiguous." (footnote omitted)); id., ¶ 53 (Bablitch, J., concurring) (advocating the use of any useful and available information regarding legislative intent); State v. Byers, 2003 WI 86, ¶¶ 46-47 , 263 Wis.2d 113 , 665 N.W.2d 729 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring) ("Even a casual observer of the Wisconsin cases w 2006Soc'y, 2003 WI 87, ¶ 43 , 263 Wis. 2d 207 , 655 N.W.2d 181 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring) ("[T]his is another case in which the court mouths the exclusive plain meaning rule and then properly looks beyond the 'plain language' of the statute without finding that the statutory language is ambiguous." (footnote omitted)); id., ¶ 53 (Bablitch, J., concurring) (advocating the use of any useful and available information regarding legislative intent); State v. Byers, 2003 WI 86, ¶¶ 46-47 , 263 Wis.2d 113 , 665 N.W.2d 729 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring) ("Even a casual observer of the Wisconsin cases w | 2 | 2003–2006 |
State Ex Rel. Cramer v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals
green
2 sentences2004Cramer v. Schwarz, 2000 WI 86, ¶ 37 , 236 Wis. 2d 473 , 613 N.W.2d 591 . 2004Cramer v. Schwarz, 2000 WI 86, ¶ 37 , 236 Wis. 2d 473 , 613 N.W.2d 591 . | 2 | 2002–2004 |
Kelley Co., Inc. v. Marquardt
green
2 sentences2000Kelley Co. v. Marquardt, 172 Wis. 2d 234, 247 , 493 N.W.2d 68 (1992); see also Johnson v. County of Crawford, 195 Wis. 2d 374, 383 , 536 N.W.2d 167 (Ct. App. 1995). 2000Kelley Co. v. Marquardt, 172 Wis. 2d 234, 247 , 493 N.W.2d 68 (1992); see also Johnson v. County of Crawford, 195 Wis. 2d 374, 383 , 536 N.W.2d 167 (Ct. App. 1995). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Beatriz Banuelos v. University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority
green
1 sentence2025Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶46 ; Banuelos, 406 Wis. 2d 439, ¶25 ; Brey, 400 Wis. 2d 417, ¶¶11, 20 ; Wis. Just. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Thomas D. Nowell v. City of Wausau green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Stewart green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Department of Natural Resources v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Sullivan green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Peterson v. Midwest Security Insurance green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Auman Ex Rel. Auman v. School District of Stanley-Boyd green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Seider v. O'CONNELL green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District v. City of Milwaukee green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Nelson v. Rothering green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| BKCAP, LLC v. CAPTEC Franchise Trust 2000-1 green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Racine Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. State Division of Hearings & Appeals green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Booth v. Churner green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| County of Dane v. Labor & Industry Review Commission green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Fox Ex Rel. Fricker v. Catholic Knights Insurance Society green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Davison green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| CBS Inc., Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Primetime 24 Joint Venture green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Chavez green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Stoehr green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Martin green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Rice v. Ashland County green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Boynton Cab Co. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Sommerfeld v. Board of Canvassers green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Young v. Board of Ed., Joint Dist. No. 10 green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Cross v. Soderbeck green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.