11 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
William Edwards v. Aetna Life Insurance Companygreen2 sentences2023Co., 690 F.2d 595, 599 (6th Cir. 1982)). 2023Co., 690 F.2d 595, 599 (6th Cir. 1982)). | 2 | 2 |
International Chemical Workers Union Local No. 189 v. Purex Corp.green2 sentences1997See International Chemical Workers Union Local No. 189 v. Purex Corp., 427 F. Supp. 338, 339 (D. 1997See International Chemical Workers Union Local No. 189 v. Purex Corp., 427 F. Supp. 338, 339 (D. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bolstadgreen2 sentences1992State v. Bolstad, 124 Wis. 2d 576, 583 , 370 N.W.2d 257, 261 (1985). 1992State v. Bolstad, 124 Wis. 2d 576, 583 , 370 N.W.2d 257, 261 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 507099green1 sentence1991Id. at 420. *233 The doctrines of estoppel are based on principles of equity and justice. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Reynolds v. Zimmerman
green
2 sentences2023Reynolds v. Zimmerman, 22 Wis. 2d 544, 552 , 126 N.W.2d 551 (1964). 54 No. 2023AP1399-OA.akz ¶143 Judicial estoppel is a preclusion principle "intended to protect the judiciary as an institution from the perversion of judicial machinery[.]" Petty, 201 Wis. 2d at 346 (quoting Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. 2023Reynolds v. Zimmerman, 22 Wis. 2d 544, 552 , 126 N.W.2d 551 (1964). 54 No. 2023AP1399-OA.akz ¶143 Judicial estoppel is a preclusion principle "intended to protect the judiciary as an institution from the perversion of judicial machinery[.]" Petty, 201 Wis. 2d at 346 (quoting Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Petty
green
2 sentences2023Reynolds v. Zimmerman, 22 Wis. 2d 544, 552 , 126 N.W.2d 551 (1964). 54 No. 2023AP1399-OA.akz ¶143 Judicial estoppel is a preclusion principle "intended to protect the judiciary as an institution from the perversion of judicial machinery[.]" Petty, 201 Wis. 2d at 346 (quoting Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. 2023Reynolds v. Zimmerman, 22 Wis. 2d 544, 552 , 126 N.W.2d 551 (1964). 54 No. 2023AP1399-OA.akz ¶143 Judicial estoppel is a preclusion principle "intended to protect the judiciary as an institution from the perversion of judicial machinery[.]" Petty, 201 Wis. 2d at 346 (quoting Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Taylor v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2009The question before the Court was whether "the Sixth Amendment bars a court from ever ordering the preclusion of defense evidence as a sanction for violating a discovery rule." Id. at 406 , 108 S.Ct. 646 . 2009The question before the Court was whether "the Sixth Amendment bars a court from ever ordering the preclusion of defense evidence as a sanction for violating a discovery rule." Id. at 406 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Montana v. United States
green
1 sentence2006The summary nature of the hearing the court conducted calls into question the quality and extensiveness of the proceeding and makes the court's determinations inappropriate for the application of the preclusion doctrine. 5 See Montana, 440 U.S. at 164 n.11. *85 ¶ 17. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Wisconsin v. Parrish
green
2 sentences2004State v. Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, ¶ 14 , 258 Wis. 2d 521 , 654 N.W.2d 273 . 2004State v. Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, ¶ 14 , 258 Wis. 2d 521 , 654 N.W.2d 273 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Mark A. Ramsden, Raelynn Ramsden, and Milton R. Ramsden, Individually and D/B/A Ramsden Dairy v. Agribank, Fcb
green
2 sentences2001The court concluded that once a state court has explicitly rejected a preclusion defense premised on a prior federal court judgment, "the affront of federal court intervention stripping the state court of power to continue is greatly magnified." Ramsden, 214 F.3d at 870 . 2001The court concluded that once a state court has explicitly rejected a preclusion defense premised on a prior federal court judgment, "the affront of federal court intervention stripping the state court of power to continue is greatly magnified." Ramsden, 214 F.3d at 870 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Gregory v. Chehi
green
1 sentence1995Several courts, in an effort "[t]o reduce the confusion that resulted from the interchangeable use of these terms, . . . have refined the nomenclature used in the preclusion doctrine." Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Lindas v. Cady
green
2 sentences1994Lindas, 175 Wis. 2d at 298 . 1994Lindas, 175 Wis. 2d at 298 . [1] The question we must decide is whether the commission's unreviewed determination of no probable cause now precludes Lindas's sec. 1983 claim. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.