11 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Read v. Readgreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., Read, 205 Wis. 2d at 569 (alleging controlling directors mismanaged a corporation); Notz v. Everett Smith Group, Ltd., 2009 WI 30, ¶23 , 316 Wis. 2d 640 , 764 N.W.2d 904 (determining that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is derivative based on a lost corporate opportunity). 2013See, e.g., Read, 205 Wis. 2d at 569 (alleging controlling directors mismanaged a corporation); Notz v. Everett Smith Group, Ltd., 2009 WI 30, ¶ 23 , 316 Wis. 2d 640 , 764 N.W.2d 904 (determining that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is derivative based on a lost corporate opportunity). | 2 | 2 |
Notz v. Everett Smith Group, Ltd.green2 sentences2013See, e.g., Read, 205 Wis. 2d at 569 (alleging controlling directors mismanaged a corporation); Notz v. Everett Smith Group, Ltd., 2009 WI 30, ¶ 23 , 316 Wis. 2d 640 , 764 N.W.2d 904 (determining that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is derivative based on a lost corporate opportunity). 2013See, e.g., Read, 205 Wis. 2d at 569 (alleging controlling directors mismanaged a corporation); Notz v. Everett Smith Group, Ltd., 2009 WI 30, ¶ 23 , 316 Wis. 2d 640 , 764 N.W.2d 904 (determining that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is derivative based on a lost corporate opportunity). | 1 | 3 |
Hatleberg v. Norwest Bank Wisconsingreen2 sentences2025Hatleberg v. Norwest Bank Wis., 2005 WI 109, ¶¶1, 15 , 283 Wis. 2d 234 , 700 N.W.2d 15 (addressing a breach of fiduciary duty claim brought against a trustee). “‘Findings of fact shall not be set aside [on appeal] unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.’” Id., ¶15 (quoting WIS. 2025Hatleberg v. Norwest Bank Wis., 2005 WI 109, ¶¶1, 15 , 283 Wis. 2d 234 , 700 N.W.2d 15 (addressing a breach of fiduciary duty claim brought against a trustee). “‘Findings of fact shall not be set aside [on appeal] unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.’” Id., ¶15 (quoting WIS. | 1 | 2 |
BERNER CHEESE CORPORATION v. Kruggreen1 sentence2023See Gottsacker, 281 Wis. 2d 361, ¶31 (holding that willfully unfair conduct is that which results in injury to the corporation); Berner Cheese, 312 Wis. 2d 251, ¶40 (holding that a breach of fiduciary duty claim requires that the breach of duty caused injury to the plaintiff). | 1 | 1 |
Gottsacker v. Monniergreen1 sentence2023See Gottsacker, 281 Wis. 2d 361, ¶31 (holding that willfully unfair conduct is that which results in injury to the corporation); Berner Cheese, 312 Wis. 2d 251, ¶40 (holding that a breach of fiduciary duty claim requires that the breach of duty caused injury to the plaintiff). | 1 | 1 |
Omnitech International, Inc. v. Clorox Co.green2 sentences2006Va. 1995); (concluding that tortious interference with contract claims were not abrogated by Virginia's UTSA where those claims did not rely on the misappropriation of trade secrets); Omnitech Int'l, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 11 F.3d 1316, 1330 (5th Cir. 1994) (concluding that a breach of fiduciary duty claim based on trade secret information was abrogated by the Louisiana statute's preclusion provision, but allowed other breach of fiduciary duty claims, although ultimately rejecting them because there was no contractual agreement that would create a fiduciary duty). 2006Co. v. Portion Pac, Inc., 905 F.Supp. 346, 348-49 (E.D.Va.1995); (concluding that tortious interference with contract claims were not abrogated by Virginia's UTSA where those claims did not rely on the misappropriation of trade secrets); Omnitech Int'l, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 11 F.3d 1316, 1330 (5th Cir.1994) (concluding that a breach of fiduciary duty claim based on trade secret information was abrogated by the Louisiana statute's preclusion provision, but allowed other breach of fiduciary duty claims, although ultimately rejecting them because there was no contractual agreement that would creat | 1 | 1 |
Powell Products, Inc. v. Marksgreen1 sentence2006Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 940 F.Supp. 1300, 1309 (N.D.Ill.1996) (holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim premised on conduct other than the misappropriation of trade secret technology would survive, but declined to allow the claim before it because it was based on a trade secret); Powell Prods., Inc. v. Marks, 948 F.Supp. 1469, 1474 (D.Colo.1996) (concluding that "preemption is only appropriate where `other claims are no more than a restatement of the same operative facts which would plainly and exclusively spell out only trade secret misappropriation'"); Web Communications Group, | 1 | 1 |
Posner v. Essex Insurance Companygreen2 sentences2006In Posner v. Essex Insurance Co., 178 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 1999), the court applied Florida law and noted that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is an intentional tort in Florida. 2006In Posner v. Essex Insurance Co., 178 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 1999), the court applied Florida law and noted that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is an intentional tort in Florida. | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Paul Revere Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2006Co., 80 F. Supp. 2d 978, 1004 (E.D. 2006Co., 80 F. Supp. 2d 978, 1004 (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
Thermodyne Food Service Products, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp.green2 sentences2006Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 940 F. Supp. 1300, 1309 (N.D. 2006Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 940 F.Supp. 1300, 1309 (N.D.Ill.1996) (holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim premised on conduct other than the misappropriation of trade secret technology would survive, but declined to allow the claim before it because it was based on a trade secret); Powell Prods., Inc. v. Marks, 948 F.Supp. 1469, 1474 (D.Colo.1996) (concluding that "preemption is only appropriate where `other claims are no more than a restatement of the same operative facts which would plainly and exclusively spell out only trade secret misappropriation'"); Web Communications Group, | 1 | 1 |
Smithfield Ham & Products Co. v. Portion Pac, Inc.green1 sentence2006Co. v. Portion Pac, Inc., 905 F.Supp. 346, 348-49 (E.D.Va.1995); (concluding that tortious interference with contract claims were not abrogated by Virginia's UTSA where those claims did not rely on the misappropriation of trade secrets); Omnitech Int'l, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 11 F.3d 1316, 1330 (5th Cir.1994) (concluding that a breach of fiduciary duty claim based on trade secret information was abrogated by the Louisiana statute's preclusion provision, but allowed other breach of fiduciary duty claims, although ultimately rejecting them because there was no contractual agreement that would creat | 1 | 1 |
Paint Brush Corp. v. Neugreen1 sentence2006July 18, 2001) (concluding that claim was not abrogated insofar as it was not based on the misappropriation of a trade secret); Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 108 F.Supp.2d 968, 972-73 (N.D.Ill.2000) (concluding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was based solely on misappropriation of trade secret and therefore, abrogated by the UTSA); Paint Brush Corp. v. Neu, 599 N.W.2d 384, 391-93 (S.D.1999) (holding that where a breach of fiduciary duty claim is based on evidence that employee was taking steps to compete with employer while still employed was not abrogated by trade secrets statut | 1 | 1 |
Mcmahon v. Pennsylvania Life Insurance Companygreen2 sentences2006Co., 891 F.2d 1251, 1255 (7th Cir. 1989) (affirming the district court's dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim based on our decision in Warmka); see also Lewis v. Paul Revere Life Ins. 2006Co., 891 F.2d 1251, 1255 (7th Cir. 1989) *450 (affirming the district court's dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim based on our decision in Warmka ); see also Lewis v. Paul Revere Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Web Communications Group, Inc. v. GATEWAY 2000, INC.green1 sentence2006Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 940 F.Supp. 1300, 1309 (N.D.Ill.1996) (holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim premised on conduct other than the misappropriation of trade secret technology would survive, but declined to allow the claim before it because it was based on a trade secret); Powell Prods., Inc. v. Marks, 948 F.Supp. 1469, 1474 (D.Colo.1996) (concluding that "preemption is only appropriate where `other claims are no more than a restatement of the same operative facts which would plainly and exclusively spell out only trade secret misappropriation'"); Web Communications Group, | 1 | 1 |
Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp.green1 sentence2006July 18, 2001) (concluding that claim was not abrogated insofar as it was not based on the misappropriation of a trade secret); Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 108 F.Supp.2d 968, 972-73 (N.D.Ill.2000) (concluding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was based solely on misappropriation of trade secret and therefore, abrogated by the UTSA); Paint Brush Corp. v. Neu, 599 N.W.2d 384, 391-93 (S.D.1999) (holding that where a breach of fiduciary duty claim is based on evidence that employee was taking steps to compete with employer while still employed was not abrogated by trade secrets statut | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Modern Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Tooling Specialists, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023“It is well established that a corporate … director is under a fiduciary duty of loyalty, good faith and fair dealing in the conduct of corporate business.” Modern Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Tooling Specialists, Inc., 206 Wis. 2d 435, 442 , 557 N.W.2d 835 (Ct. App. 1996). 2023“It is well established that a corporate … director is under a fiduciary duty of loyalty, good faith and fair dealing in the conduct of corporate business.” Modern Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Tooling Specialists, Inc., 206 Wis. 2d 435, 442 , 557 N.W.2d 835 (Ct. App. 1996). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
MacH v. Allison
green
2 sentences2019The court suggested that those developments in the litigation were likely due to ERISA being “a very technical area.” We construe the court’s consideration of this element as favoring Riggert’s request to amend. ¶18 As to the “effect on the defendant,” id., the circuit court reasoned that Reed was not prejudiced by permitting the amendment of the first amended complaint to include a denial of benefits claim because the same facts underlay both that claim and the claims that were alleged in the original and first amended complaints. 2019As to the first factor, “[t]he reasons why the party [here, Riggert] has not acted sooner [to amend the first amended complaint],” Mach, 259 Wis. 2d 686, ¶27 , the court noted that Reed failed to raise a statute of limitations defense to the breach of fiduciary duty claim until briefing on Riggert’s first motion for summary judgment on that claim. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Notz v. Everett Smith Group, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2009Despite Notz's opposition, [7] the merger was approved and became effective May 17, 2007. [8] As noted above, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's holding that the breach of fiduciary duty claim was appropriately a derivative, rather than direct, claim on the grounds that "stripp[ing] Albert Trostel & Sons of its most important assets and divert[ing] to the Smith Group Trostel's corporate opportunity *909 to buy Dickten and Masch ... [was] an injury to Trostel" because "all of the shareholders were affected equally[.]" Notz v. Everett Smith Group, Ltd., 2008 WI App 84, ¶ 17 , 312 2009Despite Notz's opposition, [7] the merger was approved and became effective May 17, 2007. [8] As noted above, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's holding that the breach of fiduciary duty claim was appropriately a derivative, rather than direct, claim on the grounds that "stripp[ing] Albert Trostel & Sons of its most important assets and divert[ing] to the Smith Group Trostel's corporate opportunity *909 to buy Dickten and Masch ... [was] an injury to Trostel" because "all of the shareholders were affected equally[.]" Notz v. Everett Smith Group, Ltd., 2008 WI App 84, ¶ 17 , 312 | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Zastrow v. Journal Communications, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Zastrow, 291 Wis.2d 426, ¶ 30 , 718 N.W.2d 51 ; see also Cmty. Nat'l Bank v. Med. 2008Zastrow, 291 Wis. 2d 426, ¶ 30 ; see also Cmty. Nat'l Bank v. Med. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hatleberg v. Norwest Bank Wisconsin
neutral
2 sentences2005Two additional cases involving trusts on which the Perry employees rely require discussion: Hammes v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Racine, 79 Wis. 2d 355 , 255 N.W.2d 555 (1977), and Hatleberg v. Norwest Bank Wisconsin, 2004 WI App 48 , 271 Wis. 2d 225 , 678 N.W.2d 302 , aff'd on other grounds, Hatleberg *430 v. Norwest Bank Wisconsin, 2005 WI 109 , 283 Wis.2d 234 , 700 N.W.2d 15 . 2005Two additional cases involving trusts on which the Perry employees rely require discussion: Hammes v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Racine, 79 Wis. 2d 355 , 255 N.W.2d 555 (1977), and Hatleberg v. Norwest Bank Wisconsin, 2004 WI App 48 , 271 Wis. 2d 225 , 678 N.W.2d 302 , aff'd on other grounds, Hatleberg *430 v. Norwest Bank Wisconsin, 2005 WI 109 , 283 Wis.2d 234 , 700 N.W.2d 15 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hammes v. First National Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2005Two additional cases involving trusts on which the Perry employees rely require discussion: Hammes v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Racine, 79 Wis. 2d 355 , 255 N.W.2d 555 (1977), and Hatleberg v. Norwest Bank Wisconsin, 2004 WI App 48 , 271 Wis. 2d 225 , 678 N.W.2d 302 , aff'd on other grounds, Hatleberg *430 v. Norwest Bank Wisconsin, 2005 WI 109 , 283 Wis.2d 234 , 700 N.W.2d 15 . 2005Two additional cases involving trusts on which the Perry employees rely require discussion: Hammes v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Racine, 79 Wis. 2d 355 , 255 N.W.2d 555 (1977), and Hatleberg v. Norwest Bank Wisconsin, 2004 WI App 48 , 271 Wis. 2d 225 , 678 N.W.2d 302 , aff'd on other grounds, Hatleberg *430 v. Norwest Bank Wisconsin, 2005 WI 109 , 283 Wis.2d 234 , 700 N.W.2d 15 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Beloit Liquidating Trust v. Grade
green
2 sentences2005The Perry employees do not discuss the supreme court's decision in Beloit Liquidating , but instead cite to this court's decision, Beloit Liquidating Trust v. Grade, 2003 WI App 176, ¶ 9 , 266 Wis. 2d 388 , 669 N.W.2d 232 . 2005The Perry employees do not discuss the supreme court's decision in Beloit Liquidating , but instead cite to this court's decision, Beloit Liquidating Trust v. Grade, 2003 WI App 176, ¶ 9 , 266 Wis. 2d 388 , 669 N.W.2d 232 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.