notification requirement (Wisconsin) · Go Syfert
← Wisconsin issues

notification requirement in Wisconsin

9 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2024 3 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.

Followed or applied (9)

CaseFollowedCited
Pierce v. Norwickgreen
wisctapp · 1996 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2022–2024
2 sentences

2024Id. at 596 (emphasis added).

2022Pierce, 202 Wis. 2d at 596 . ¶30 We fail to see how the situation in Pierce, and not Moonlight, should control in the case at hand.

12
Cholvin v. Wisconsin Department of Health & Family Servicesgreen
wisctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024In those provisions, the agency speaks with an official voice intended to have the effect of law.’” Cholvin, 313 Wis. 2d 749, ¶29 (citation omitted).

11
Lang v. Kurtzgreen
wisctapp · 1980 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012See Lang, 100 Wis. 2d at 45 . ¶ 2.

11
Bartus v. Wisconsin Department of Health & Social Servicesgreen
wis · 1993 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998Bartus, 176 Wis. 2d at 1076 , 501 N.W.2d at 425-26 (emphasis added).

1998Bartus, 176 Wis. 2d at 1076 , 501 N.W.2d at 425-26 (emphasis added).

11
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermillgreen
scotus · 1985 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
2 sentences

1993See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 539-41 (1985) (rejecting the plurality's suggestion to the contrary in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), with respect to property interests); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983) (liberty interests do not arise from state-created procedural devices); Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1100 (7th Cir. 1982) (argument that procedures established in prison regulations can themselves be considered a liberty interest held "analytically indefensible").

1993See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 539-41 (1985) (rejecting the plurality's suggestion to the contrary in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), with respect to property interests); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983) (liberty interests do not arise from state-created procedural devices); Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1100 (7th Cir. 1982) (argument that procedures established in prison regulations can themselves be considered a liberty interest held "analytically indefensible"). [8] Because Yoder has not established that he has a constitutionally protected int

11
Shango v. Jurichgreen
ca7 · 1982 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
2 sentences

1993See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 539-41 (1985) (rejecting the plurality's suggestion to the contrary in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), with respect to property interests); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983) (liberty interests do not arise from state-created procedural devices); Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1100 (7th Cir. 1982) (argument that procedures established in prison regulations can themselves be considered a liberty interest held "analytically indefensible").

1993See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 539-41 (1985) (rejecting the plurality's suggestion to the contrary in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), with respect to property interests); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983) (liberty interests do not arise from state-created procedural devices); Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1100 (7th Cir. 1982) (argument that procedures established in prison regulations can themselves be considered a liberty interest held "analytically indefensible"). [8] Because Yoder has not established that he has a constitutionally protected int

11
Arnett v. Kennedygreen
scotus · 1974 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
2 sentences

1993See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 539-41 (1985) (rejecting the plurality's suggestion to the contrary in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), with respect to property interests); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983) (liberty interests do not arise from state-created procedural devices); Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1100 (7th Cir. 1982) (argument that procedures established in prison regulations can themselves be considered a liberty interest held "analytically indefensible").

1993See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 539-41 (1985) (rejecting the plurality's suggestion to the contrary in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), with respect to property interests); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983) (liberty interests do not arise from state-created procedural devices); Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1100 (7th Cir. 1982) (argument that procedures established in prison regulations can themselves be considered a liberty interest held "analytically indefensible"). [8] Because Yoder has not established that he has a constitutionally protected int

11
Olim v. Wakinekonagreen
scotus · 1983 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
2 sentences

1993See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 539-41 (1985) (rejecting the plurality's suggestion to the contrary in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), with respect to property interests); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983) (liberty interests do not arise from state-created procedural devices); Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1100 (7th Cir. 1982) (argument that procedures established in prison regulations can themselves be considered a liberty interest held "analytically indefensible").

1993See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 539-41 (1985) (rejecting the plurality's suggestion to the contrary in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), with respect to property interests); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983) (liberty interests do not arise from state-created procedural devices); Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1100 (7th Cir. 1982) (argument that procedures established in prison regulations can themselves be considered a liberty interest held "analytically indefensible"). [8] Because Yoder has not established that he has a constitutionally protected int

11
cluster 263736green
ca8 · 1964 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
1 sentence

1982See Boeing Airplane Co. v. O’Malley, 329 F.2d 585 (8th Cir. *525 1964); Recent Decision, Sales: What Constitutes Sufficient Notification for Breach of Warranty, 47 Marq.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Brown green
wisctapp · 2003
2 sentences

2005State v. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, ¶ 12 , 260 Wis. 2d 125 , 659 N.W.2d 110 .

2005State v. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, ¶ 12 , 260 Wis. 2d 125 , 659 N.W.2d 110 .

12005–2005
Claypool v. Levin green
wis · 1997
2 sentences

1998Therefore, any jurisdictional defect caused by the Tomczaks' failure to comply with the notification requirement during the circuit court proceedings, see Kurtz v. City of Waukesha, 91 Wis. 2d 103, 116-17 , 280 N.W.2d 757 (1979), "was cured by virtue of the subsequent invitation to the attorney general to participate in the court of appeals' proceedings." In re Estate of Fessler, 100 Wis. 2d 437, 444 , 302 N.W.2d 414 (1981). [3] For recent discussions of the Hansen discovery rule and its application, see Claypool v. Levin, 209 Wis. 2d 284, 294-97 , 562 N.W.2d 584 (1997); Pritzlaff v. Archdioce

1998Therefore, any jurisdictional defect caused by the Tomczaks' failure to comply with the notification requirement during the circuit court proceedings, see Kurtz v. City of Waukesha, 91 Wis. 2d 103, 116-17 , 280 N.W.2d 757 (1979), "was cured by virtue of the subsequent invitation to the attorney general to participate in the court of appeals' proceedings." In re Estate of Fessler, 100 Wis. 2d 437, 444 , 302 N.W.2d 414 (1981). [3] For recent discussions of the Hansen discovery rule and its application, see Claypool v. Levin, 209 Wis. 2d 284, 294-97 , 562 N.W.2d 584 (1997); Pritzlaff v. Archdioce

11998–1998
Kurtz v. City of Waukesha green
wis · 1979
2 sentences

1998Therefore, any jurisdictional defect caused by the Tomczaks' failure to comply with the notification requirement during the circuit court proceedings, see Kurtz v. City of Waukesha, 91 Wis. 2d 103, 116-17 , 280 N.W.2d 757 (1979), "was cured by virtue of the subsequent invitation to the attorney general to participate in the court of appeals' proceedings." In re Estate of Fessler, 100 Wis. 2d 437, 444 , 302 N.W.2d 414 (1981). [3] For recent discussions of the Hansen discovery rule and its application, see Claypool v. Levin, 209 Wis. 2d 284, 294-97 , 562 N.W.2d 584 (1997); Pritzlaff v. Archdioce

1998Therefore, any jurisdictional defect caused by the Tomczaks' failure to comply with the notification requirement during the circuit court proceedings, see Kurtz v. City of Waukesha, 91 Wis. 2d 103, 116-17 , 280 N.W.2d 757 (1979), "was cured by virtue of the subsequent invitation to the attorney general to participate in the court of appeals' proceedings." In re Estate of Fessler, 100 Wis. 2d 437, 444 , 302 N.W.2d 414 (1981). [3] For recent discussions of the Hansen discovery rule and its application, see Claypool v. Levin, 209 Wis. 2d 284, 294-97 , 562 N.W.2d 584 (1997); Pritzlaff v. Archdioce

11998–1998
William B. Tanner Co. v. Estate of Fessler green
wis · 1981
2 sentences

1998Therefore, any jurisdictional defect caused by the Tomczaks' failure to comply with the notification requirement during the circuit court proceedings, see Kurtz v. City of Waukesha, 91 Wis. 2d 103, 116-17 , 280 N.W.2d 757 (1979), "was cured by virtue of the subsequent invitation to the attorney general to participate in the court of appeals' proceedings." In re Estate of Fessler, 100 Wis. 2d 437, 444 , 302 N.W.2d 414 (1981). [3] For recent discussions of the Hansen discovery rule and its application, see Claypool v. Levin, 209 Wis. 2d 284, 294-97 , 562 N.W.2d 584 (1997); Pritzlaff v. Archdioce

1998Therefore, any jurisdictional defect caused by the Tomczaks' failure to comply with the notification requirement during the circuit court proceedings, see Kurtz v. City of Waukesha, 91 Wis. 2d 103, 116-17 , 280 N.W.2d 757 (1979), "was cured by virtue of the subsequent invitation to the attorney general to participate in the court of appeals' proceedings." In re Estate of Fessler, 100 Wis. 2d 437, 444 , 302 N.W.2d 414 (1981). [3] For recent discussions of the Hansen discovery rule and its application, see Claypool v. Levin, 209 Wis. 2d 284, 294-97 , 562 N.W.2d 584 (1997); Pritzlaff v. Archdioce

11998–1998
Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee green
wis · 1995
2 sentences

1998Therefore, any jurisdictional defect caused by the Tomczaks' failure to comply with the notification requirement during the circuit court proceedings, see Kurtz v. City of Waukesha, 91 Wis. 2d 103, 116-17 , 280 N.W.2d 757 (1979), "was cured by virtue of the subsequent invitation to the attorney general to participate in the court of appeals' proceedings." In re Estate of Fessler, 100 Wis. 2d 437, 444 , 302 N.W.2d 414 (1981). [3] For recent discussions of the Hansen discovery rule and its application, see Claypool v. Levin, 209 Wis. 2d 284, 294-97 , 562 N.W.2d 584 (1997); Pritzlaff v. Archdioce

1998Therefore, any jurisdictional defect caused by the Tomczaks' failure to comply with the notification requirement during the circuit court proceedings, see Kurtz v. City of Waukesha, 91 Wis. 2d 103, 116-17 , 280 N.W.2d 757 (1979), "was cured by virtue of the subsequent invitation to the attorney general to participate in the court of appeals' proceedings." In re Estate of Fessler, 100 Wis. 2d 437, 444 , 302 N.W.2d 414 (1981). [3] For recent discussions of the Hansen discovery rule and its application, see Claypool v. Levin, 209 Wis. 2d 284, 294-97 , 562 N.W.2d 584 (1997); Pritzlaff v. Archdioce

11998–1998

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WI § Wis. Stat. § 808.10 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 38 (1992–2025) CA 27 (1926–2025) IL 19 (1983–2025) NJ 15 (1979–2022) NY 13 (1970–2025) TX 10 (1990–2014) KY 10 (1999–2025) WI 9 (1982–2024) FL 8 (1994–2020) PA 8 (1980–2023) GA 6 (1992–2014) DC 4 (1986–2006) MO 4 (1986–2016) NC 4 (1988–2010) KS 4 (1986–2021) LA 3 (1986–1995) CT 3 (1988–2016) CO 3 (1986–2016) MD 3 (1996–2017) ND 3 (1981–1999) MI 3 (1993–2020) MN 3 (1978–1996) WA 2 (2000–2000) UT 2 (2015–2019) AK 2 (1995–2016) AZ 2 (2011–2012) NE 2 (1989–1991) SC 2 (2011–2012) MS 2 (1997–1998)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check