agreement immunity in Wisconsin

2008See Austin v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 727, 734 , 183 N.W.2d 56 (1971) (stating that "[a] plea agreement should always be made a matter of record whether it involves a recommendation of sentencing, a reduced charge, a nolle prosequi of charges or read ins with an agreement of immunity."); Garski v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 62, 77 , 248 N.W.2d 425 (1977) (providing that "[t]he defendant should be advised by the trial court, on the record, of the effect of the read-ins. ...").

2008See Austin v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 727, 734 , 183 N.W.2d 56 (1971) (stating that "[a] plea agreement should always be made a matter of record whether it involves a recommendation of sentencing, a reduced charge, a nolle prosequi of charges or read ins with an agreement of immunity."); Garski v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 62, 77 , 248 N.W.2d 425 (1977) (providing that "[t]he defendant should be advised by the trial court, on the record, of the effect of the read-ins. ...").

2018Corp. , 388 U.S. 395 , 400 (1967), the Supreme Court held that consideration of a claim of fraud in the inducement of a contract that contains an arbitration clause challenges the contract as a whole and "is for the arbitrators and not for the courts"); (2) Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v.Jones , 2006 WI 53 , ¶ 6, 290 Wis. 2d 514 , 714 N.W.2d 155 (stating that "[t]he United States Supreme Court has made it clear that ... challenges to the validity of a contract as a whole must be made in arbitration" where the contract contains an arbitration clause); and (3) Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v.

2018Corp. , 388 U.S. 395 , 400 (1967), the Supreme Court held that consideration of a claim of fraud in the inducement of a contract that contains an arbitration clause challenges the contract as a whole and "is for the arbitrators and not for the courts"); (2) Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v.Jones , 2006 WI 53 , ¶ 6, 290 Wis. 2d 514 , 714 N.W.2d 155 (stating that "[t]he United States Supreme Court has made it clear that ... challenges to the validity of a contract as a whole must be made in arbitration" where the contract contains an arbitration clause); and (3) Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v.

2018Corp. , 388 U.S. 395 , 400 (1967), the Supreme Court held that consideration of a claim of fraud in the inducement of a contract that contains an arbitration clause challenges the contract as a whole and "is for the arbitrators and not for the courts"); (2) Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v.Jones , 2006 WI 53 , ¶ 6, 290 Wis. 2d 514 , 714 N.W.2d 155 (stating that "[t]he United States Supreme Court has made it clear that ... challenges to the validity of a contract as a whole must be made in arbitration" where the contract contains an arbitration clause); and (3) Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v.

2018Corp. , 388 U.S. 395 , 400 (1967), the Supreme Court held that consideration of a claim of fraud in the inducement of a contract that contains an arbitration clause challenges the contract as a whole and "is for the arbitrators and not for the courts"); (2) Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v.Jones , 2006 WI 53 , ¶ 6, 290 Wis. 2d 514 , 714 N.W.2d 155 (stating that "[t]he United States Supreme Court has made it clear that ... challenges to the validity of a contract as a whole must be made in arbitration" where the contract contains an arbitration clause); and (3) Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v.

2018The Rootses' Claims are Subject to the Arbitration Clause ¶ 11 Udvari-Solner asserts that all of the Rootses' claims are subject to arbitration. 4 Specifically, he contends that, under federal and state case law, the Rootses' claims alleging fraud in the inducement of the Agreement challenge the validity of the entire Agreement and are therefore subject to the arbitration clause in the Agreement, which provides that all disputes over $5,000 are subject to arbitration. ¶ 12 In support of his argument, Udvari-Solner cites three cases: (1) Southland Corp. v. Keating , 465 U.S. 1 , 11 (1984) (noti

2006The court disagreed with the plaintiffs that failing to adequately test the DES or warn patients of its potential damages satisfied the agreement requirement, and concluded that "[a]lthough there was a substantial amount of a parallel action by the defendants in producing and marketing DES for use in pregnancy . . . this d[id.] not rise to the level of `acting in concert.'" Id. ¶ 17 The second case of relevance, the drag racing case referenced by Collins , is Ogle v. Avina, 33 Wis.2d 125 , 146 N.W.2d 422 (1966).

2006The court disagreed with the plaintiffs that failing to adequately test the DES or warn patients of its potential damages satisfied the agreement requirement, and concluded that "[a]lthough there was a substantial amount of a parallel action by the defendants in producing and marketing DES for use in pregnancy . . . this d[id.] not rise to the level of `acting in concert.'" Id. ¶ 17 The second case of relevance, the drag racing case referenced by Collins , is Ogle v. Avina, 33 Wis.2d 125 , 146 N.W.2d 422 (1966).

2006The premise of the Mankes' argument, as we understand it, is twofold: (1) the high-low agreement is no longer valid to limit damages, because the circuit court held that the agreement did not bar Dr. Hendrickson's motion for a new trial based on extraneous information, and, thus, if the Mankes' prevail in a new trial on negligence and causation, they will be entitled to $996,967 plus costs; and (2) in view of Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 2005 WI 125, ¶ 10 , 284 Wis. 2d 573 , 701 N.W.2d 440 , which holds that the $350,000 cap on non-economic damages in Wis. Stat. § 655.017 an

2006The premise of the Mankes' argument, as we understand it, is twofold: (1) the high-low agreement is no longer valid to limit damages, because the circuit court held that the agreement did not bar Dr. Hendrickson's motion for a new trial based on extraneous information, and, thus, if the Mankes' prevail in a new trial on negligence and causation, they will be entitled to $996,967 plus costs; and (2) in view of Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 2005 WI 125, ¶ 10 , 284 Wis. 2d 573 , 701 N.W.2d 440 , which holds that the $350,000 cap on non-economic damages in Wis. Stat. § 655.017 an

2006The court disagreed with the plaintiffs that failing to adequately test the DES or warn patients of its potential damages satisfied the agreement requirement, and concluded that "[a]lthough there was a substantial amount of a parallel action by the defendants in producing and marketing DES for use in pregnancy . . . this d[id.] not rise to the level of `acting in concert.'" Id. ¶ 17 The second case of relevance, the drag racing case referenced by Collins , is Ogle v. Avina, 33 Wis.2d 125 , 146 N.W.2d 422 (1966).

1987We construe this agreement to be a waiver of governmental immunity by the city *130 recognized and agreed to by the insurer.” 18 Wis. 2d at 501 .

1987We further stated that, "We do not hold, however, a municipality waives its immunity when it takes out a liability policy which does not contain the condition or agreement to refrain from raising the defense of governmental immunity.” Id. at 502 .

1902T'o add to this agreement the requirement that the plaintiff shall give notice of the election would be for the court to add to the agreement of the parties a condition which they have not themselves chosen to make.” The rule here was first distinctly stated in Basse v. Gal legger, 7 Wis. 442 .