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.
10 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Linden v. Cascade Stone Company, Inc.green2 sentences2012As the supreme court explained in Linden v. Cascade Stone Co., 2005 WI 113 , 283 Wis. 2d 606 , 699 N.W.2d 189 , courts "use the predominant purpose test to determine whether a mixed contract for products and services is predominantly a sale of a product and therefore subject to the economic loss doctrine, or predominantly a contract for services and therefore not subject to the economic loss doctrine." Id., ¶ 8 (citations omitted). ¶ 24. 2012As the supreme court explained in Linden v. Cascade Stone Co., 2005 WI 113 , 283 Wis. 2d 606 , 699 N.W.2d 189 , courts "use the predominant purpose test to determine whether a mixed contract for products and services is predominantly a sale of a product and therefore subject to the economic loss doctrine, or predominantly a contract for services and therefore not subject to the economic loss doctrine." Id., ¶ 8 (citations omitted). ¶ 24. | 2 | 5 |
Insurance Co. of North America v. Cease Electric Inc.green2 sentences2005See Cease Elec., 276 Wis. 2d 361 , ¶¶ 16 & n.5, 21. 6 Although T-3 also argues that Linden v. Cascade Stone Co., 2004 WI App 184 , 276 Wis. 2d 267 , 687 N.W.2d 823 , review granted, 2005 WI 1 , 277 Wis. 2d 151 , 691 N.W.2d 353 , governs here, as it contends that this is a "mixed" contract, which necessitates the application of the "predominant purpose" test to determine whether the contract at issue is one for a product or a service, we conclude that this is not a mixed contract that involves both products and services, and as such, we need not apply the predominant purpose test. 7 T-3 also ar 2005We use the predominant purpose test to determine whether a mixed contract for products and services is predominantly a sale of a product and therefore subject to the economic loss doctrine, see Biese, 223 Wis. 2d at 26 , or predominantly a contract for services and therefore not subject to the economic loss doctrine, see Cease Electric, 276 Wis. 2d 361, ¶ 52 . ¶ 9. | 1 | 4 |
Biese v. Parker Coatings, Inc.green2 sentences2005We use the predominant purpose test to determine whether a mixed contract for products and services is predominantly a sale of a product and therefore subject to the economic loss doctrine, see Biese, 223 Wis. 2d at 26 , or predominantly a contract for services and therefore not subject to the economic loss doctrine, see Cease Electric, 276 Wis. 2d 361, ¶ 52 . ¶ 9. 2005We use the predominant purpose test to determine whether a mixed contract for products and services is predominantly a sale of a product and therefore subject to the economic loss doctrine, see Biese, 223 Wis. 2d at 26 , or predominantly a contract for services and therefore not subject to the economic loss doctrine, see Cease Electric, 276 Wis. 2d 361, ¶ 52 . ¶ 9. | 1 | 2 |
Micro-Managers, Inc. v. Gregorygreen2 sentences2005In Micro-Managers, Inc. v. Gregory, 147 Wis. 2d 500 , 434 N.W.2d 97 (Ct. App. 1988), the court of appeals again employed the predominant purpose test to determine whether the UCC applied to the transaction. 2005In Micro-Managers, Inc. v. Gregory, 147 Wis. 2d 500 , 434 N.W.2d 97 (Ct. App. 1988), the court of appeals again employed the predominant purpose test to determine whether the UCC applied to the transaction. | 1 | 2 |
1325 North Van Buren, LLC v. T-3 Group, Ltd.green2 sentences2012See id. (listing various factors); see also id., ¶ 42 n.ll. ¶ 26. 2012In 1325 North Van Buren, 293 Wis. 2d 410 , the supreme court applied the predominant purpose test to a contract for "renovating an existing industrial warehouse into a 42-unit condominium building with attached parking garages." Id., ¶¶ 2, 42-50. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pettitgreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992). 2005See, e.g., State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Linden v. Cascade Stone Co., Inc.green2 sentences2005See Cease Elec., 276 Wis. 2d 361 , ¶¶ 16 & n.5, 21. 6 Although T-3 also argues that Linden v. Cascade Stone Co., 2004 WI App 184 , 276 Wis. 2d 267 , 687 N.W.2d 823 , review granted, 2005 WI 1 , 277 Wis. 2d 151 , 691 N.W.2d 353 , governs here, as it contends that this is a "mixed" contract, which necessitates the application of the "predominant purpose" test to determine whether the contract at issue is one for a product or a service, we conclude that this is not a mixed contract that involves both products and services, and as such, we need not apply the predominant purpose test. 7 T-3 also ar 2005See Cease Elec., 276 Wis. 2d 361 , ¶¶ 16 & n.5, 21. 6 Although T-3 also argues that Linden v. Cascade Stone Co., 2004 WI App 184 , 276 Wis. 2d 267 , 687 N.W.2d 823 , review granted, 2005 WI 1 , 277 Wis. 2d 151 , 691 N.W.2d 353 , governs here, as it contends that this is a "mixed" contract, which necessitates the application of the "predominant purpose" test to determine whether the contract at issue is one for a product or a service, we conclude that this is not a mixed contract that involves both products and services, and as such, we need not apply the predominant purpose test. 7 T-3 also ar | 1 | 1 |
Lakefront Neighborhood Coalition v. City of Milwaukeegreen1 sentence2005See Cease Elec., 276 Wis. 2d 361 , ¶¶ 16 & n.5, 21. 6 Although T-3 also argues that Linden v. Cascade Stone Co., 2004 WI App 184 , 276 Wis. 2d 267 , 687 N.W.2d 823 , review granted, 2005 WI 1 , 277 Wis. 2d 151 , 691 N.W.2d 353 , governs here, as it contends that this is a "mixed" contract, which necessitates the application of the "predominant purpose" test to determine whether the contract at issue is one for a product or a service, we conclude that this is not a mixed contract that involves both products and services, and as such, we need not apply the predominant purpose test. 7 T-3 also ar | 1 | 1 |
Frances M. Bonebrake, Administratrix De Bonis Non of the Estate of Woodrow B. Simek, Deceased v. Donald Cox and Claude Cox, D/B/A Tamarack Bowlgreen1 sentence1998Adopting the reasoning of Bonebrake v. Cox, 499 F.2d 951, 960 (8th Cir. 1974), we applied the predominant purpose test to determine whether a mixed contract, one for both goods and services, between a non-com *25 mercial party and a commercial party, was subject to the Uniform Commercial Code. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Van Sistine v. Tollard
green
2 sentences2007The Linden court examined Van Sistine v. Tollard, 95 Wis. 2d 678 , 291 N.W.2d 636 (Ct. App. 1980), which applied the predominant purpose test to a contract to install windows, install stucco siding, reposition appliances, and perform finishing. 2007The Linden court examined Van Sistine v. Tollard, 95 Wis. 2d 678 , 291 N.W.2d 636 (Ct. App. 1980), which applied the predominant purpose test to a contract to install windows, install stucco siding, reposition appliances, and perform finishing. | 3 | 1998–2007 |
Trinity Lutheran Church v. Dorschner Excavating, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024The contractual obligations of each ran exclusively to [TJ Prop], not to one another.” See id. ¶34 Nevertheless, the lack of “vertical privity” under the facts of this case does not change our application of the predominant purpose test outlined 15 No. 2022AP514 above. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Kenosha Hospital & Medical Center v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2008Co. of N. Am., 276 Wis.2d 361, ¶ 52 , 688 N.W.2d 462 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Minnesota Forest Products, Inc. v. Ligna MacHinery, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Id. at 904 . 2008Id. at 904 . [15] The report of the Stuarts' engineer/home inspector, Thomas Feiza, which the Stuarts presented at trial, is replete with examples of how the architectural and design services provided by WSGI and Weisflog were the cause of the rotting wood in the hot tub room, as opposed to deficient products. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
1325 North Van Buren, LLC v. T-3 Group, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2006This is the type of question the majority dare not answer. ¶ 93 Unlike the majority, the unanimous court of appeals provided a fair and more balanced description of the contract in this case: "Essentially, T-3 was to provide professional construction management services and hire subcontractors to renovate the building and complete the project." 1325 North Van Buren, LLC v. T-3 Group, Ltd., 2005 WI App 121, ¶ 3 , 284 Wis.2d 387 , 701 N.W.2d 13 . ¶ 94 Based on its description of the contract, the court of appeals declined to apply the predominant purpose test, rejecting T-3's argument that the c 2006This is the type of question the majority dare not answer. ¶ 93 Unlike the majority, the unanimous court of appeals provided a fair and more balanced description of the contract in this case: "Essentially, T-3 was to provide professional construction management services and hire subcontractors to renovate the building and complete the project." 1325 North Van Buren, LLC v. T-3 Group, Ltd., 2005 WI App 121, ¶ 3 , 284 Wis.2d 387 , 701 N.W.2d 13 . ¶ 94 Based on its description of the contract, the court of appeals declined to apply the predominant purpose test, rejecting T-3's argument that the c | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.