11 Wisconsin opinions name it 3 courts 1966–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wisconsin Collectors Asso. v. Thorp Finance Corp.green2 sentences1986By the Court. — Order affirmed. 1 The hearing examiner identified himself at the hearing as being from "the Division of Natural Resources Hearings of the Department of Administration;" the caption on his order read "Division of Hearings and Appeals." 2 Technically, the doctrine propounded in Wisconsin Collectors Ass'n., 32 Wis. 2d at 44 , 145 N.W.2d at 36 , is the primary jurisdiction doctrine, not the exhaustion of remedies doctrine. 1986By the Court. — Order affirmed. 1 The hearing examiner identified himself at the hearing as being from "the Division of Natural Resources Hearings of the Department of Administration;" the caption on his order read "Division of Hearings and Appeals." 2 Technically, the doctrine propounded in Wisconsin Collectors Ass'n., 32 Wis. 2d at 44 , 145 N.W.2d at 36 , is the primary jurisdiction doctrine, not the exhaustion of remedies doctrine. | 1 | 2 |
Collins v. Policanogreen2 sentences2014See Collins v. Policano, 231 Wis. 2d 420, 435, 437 , 605 N.W.2d 260 (Ct. App. 1999) ("formal notice of the right to judicial review. .. need be given only in or with administrative decisions arising out of contested case proceedings"; and whereas the statute sets a deadline of thirty days for seeking judicial review of contested case proceedings, a six-month limitation applies for seeking review of noncontested case decisions). 2014See Collins v. Policano, 231 Wis. 2d 420, 435, 437 , 605 N.W.2d 260 (Ct. App. 1999) ("formal notice of the right to judicial review. .. need be given only in or with administrative decisions arising out of contested case proceedings"; and whereas the statute sets a deadline of thirty days for seeking judicial review of contested case proceedings, a six-month limitation applies for seeking review of noncontested case decisions). | 1 | 1 |
Village of Thiensville v. Department of Natural Resourcesgreen1 sentence2010Village of Thiensville, 130 Wis. 2d at 281-82 (footnote omitted). ¶ 20. | 1 | 1 |
Nodell Investment Corp. v. City of Glendalegreen2 sentences1994See Nodell, 78 Wis. 2d at 427 n.13, 254 N.W.2d at 316 n.13 (if administrative procedure has begun, the primary jurisdiction rule does not apply). 1994See Nodell, 78 Wis. 2d at 427 n.13, 254 N.W.2d at 316 n.13 (if administrative procedure has begun, the primary jurisdiction rule does not apply). | 1 | 1 |
Beal v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Asso. of Madisongreen2 sentences1986See Beal v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, 90 Wis. 2d 171, 198 , 279 N.W.2d 693, 705 (1979). 1986See Beal v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, 90 Wis. 2d 171, 198 , 279 N.W.2d 693, 705 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. Reivitz
green
2 sentences2026On appeal, we acknowledged that the issues Harris raised in his reconsideration motion “relate[d] to” the exhaustion of remedies requirement, which was “the ground the [circuit] court relied on when dismissing [Harris’s] complaint.” Id. 2026Id. at 89 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Kramer v. Horton
green
2 sentences1987Id. 1987Id. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Kaiser v. City of Mauston
green
1 sentence1985Kaiser , 99 Wis.2d at 352 -54 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Metzger v. Wisconsin Department of Taxation
green
2 sentences1974Metzger v. Department of Taxation (1967), 35 Wis. 2d 119 , 150 N. W. 2d 431 . *636 Under the exhaustion of remedies doctrine the question is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in declining jurisdiction. 1974Metzger v. Department of Taxation (1967), 35 Wis. 2d 119 , 150 N. W. 2d 431 . *636 Under the exhaustion of remedies doctrine the question is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in declining jurisdiction. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Berlowitz v. Roach
green
2 sentences1972The plaintiffs direct our attention to Berlowitz v. Roach (1947), 252 Wis. 61 , 30 N. W. 2d 256 ; S. D. 1972The plaintiffs direct our attention to Berlowitz v. Roach (1947), 252 Wis. 61 , 30 N. W. 2d 256 ; S. D. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Green v. Jones
green
1 sentence1966Ed. (2d) 126: “ ‘Exhaustion’ applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone; judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has run its course. ‘Primary jurisdiction,’ on the other hand, applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the ad | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.