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.
11 Wisconsin opinions name it 3 courts 1967–1996 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
St. Luke's Hospital Ass'n v. City of Milwaukeegreen2 sentences1987We note, too, that the expressio unius rule, "[although based upon logic and the working of the human mind ... is not a 'Procrustean standard to which all statutory language must be made to conform.’” Columbia Hospital Asso. v. Milwaukee, 35 Wis. 2d 660, 669 , 151 N.W.2d 750, 754 (1967), quoting Black on the Interpretation of Laws (2d ed.), 219. 1987We note, too, that the expressio unius rule, "[although based upon logic and the working of the human mind ... is not a 'Procrustean standard to which all statutory language must be made to conform.’” Columbia Hospital Asso. v. Milwaukee, 35 Wis. 2d 660, 669 , 151 N.W.2d 750, 754 (1967), quoting Black on the Interpretation of Laws (2d ed.), 219. | 3 | 7 |
State ex rel. City of West Allis v. Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Co.green2 sentences1980West Allis v. Milwaukee Light, Heat Tractor Co . (1917), 166 Wis. 178 , 182 , 164 N.W. 837 , 839 , quoting Black on the Interpretation of Laws (2d ed.), 219. 1980West Allis v. Milwaukee Light, Heat Tractor Co . (1917), 166 Wis. 178 , 182 , 164 N.W. 837 , 839 , quoting Black on the Interpretation of Laws (2d ed.), 219. | 1 | 4 |
Bothum v. State, Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences1987We have noted, however, that the rule, although said to be grounded in logic and the working of the human mind, "is not a 'Procrustean standard to which all statutory language must be made to conform.”’ Bothum v. Department of Transp., 134 Wis. 2d 378, 381-82 , 396 N.W.2d 785, 786 (Ct. App. 1986), citing State ex rel. 1987We have noted, however, that the rule, although said to be grounded in logic and the working of the human mind, "is not a 'Procrustean standard to which all statutory language must be made to conform.”’ Bothum v. Department of Transp., 134 Wis. 2d 378, 381-82 , 396 N.W.2d 785, 786 (Ct. App. 1986), citing State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gottlieb v. City of Milwaukee
green
2 sentences1984On the contrary, it is useful only as a guide in determining the probable intention of the legislature, and if it should be clearly apparent, in any particular case, that the legislature did not in fact intend that its express mention of one thing should operate as an exclusion of all others, then the maxim must give way.’ ” Citing Black on the Interpretation of Laws (2d ed.) 219; see also, Columbia Hospital Asso. v. Milwaukee, 35 Wis. 2d 660, 669 , 151 N.W.2d 750 (1967); Gottlieb v. Milwaukee, 90 Wis. 2d 86, 95 , 279 N.W.2d 479 (1979). 1984On the contrary, it is useful only as a guide in determining the probable intention of the legislature, and if it should be clearly apparent, in any particular case, that the legislature did not in fact intend that its express mention of one thing should operate as an exclusion of all others, then the maxim must give way.’ ” Citing Black on the Interpretation of Laws (2d ed.) 219; see also, Columbia Hospital Asso. v. Milwaukee, 35 Wis. 2d 660, 669 , 151 N.W.2d 750 (1967); Gottlieb v. Milwaukee, 90 Wis. 2d 86, 95 , 279 N.W.2d 479 (1979). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Johnson v. General Motors Corporation
green
2 sentences1979The exclusio rule is not a "`Procrustean standard to which all statutory language must be made to conform.'" Columbia Hospital Asso. v. Milwaukee , 35 Wis.2d 660 , 669 , 151 N.W.2d 750 (1967) There should be some factual evidence that the Legislature intended the exclusio rule to be applied, id ., and absent such indication, or if there appears to be some special reason for mentioning one thing and none for mentioning another, Johnson v. General Motors Corporation , 199 Kan. 720 , 433 P.2d 585 , 589 (1967), and C. 1979The exclusio rule is not a "`Procrustean standard to which all statutory language must be made to conform.'" Columbia Hospital Asso. v. Milwaukee , 35 Wis.2d 660 , 669 , 151 N.W.2d 750 (1967) There should be some factual evidence that the Legislature intended the exclusio rule to be applied, id ., and absent such indication, or if there appears to be some special reason for mentioning one thing and none for mentioning another, Johnson v. General Motors Corporation , 199 Kan. 720 , 433 P.2d 585 , 589 (1967), and C. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
National Amusement Co. v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences1977West Allis v. Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Co., 166 Wis. 178, 182 , 164 N.W. 837, 839 (1917). 10 See: National Amusement Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 41 Wis.2d 261 , 163 N.W.2d 625 (1969); State ex rel. 1977West Allis v. Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Co., 166 Wis. 178, 182 , 164 N.W. 837, 839 (1917). 10 See: National Amusement Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 41 Wis.2d 261 , 163 N.W.2d 625 (1969); State ex rel. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.