abrogation immunity in Wisconsin

2013The second sentence of Wis. Stat. § 893.80 (4) mirrors this limitation of municipal entity liability.27 ¶50 The rule as to municipal entity liability has been repeated many times since our decision in Holytz and the enactment of Wis. Stat. § 893.80 : as to non-state governmental entities, "'the rule is liability——the exception is immunity.'" Kimps v. Hill, 200 Wis. 2d 1 , 10 n.6, 546 N.W.2d 151 (1996) 26 The court's abrogation of immunity in Holytz v. City of Milwaukee, 17 Wis. 2d 26 , 115 N.W.2d 618 (1962), was not limited to municipalities, and applied to public bodies within the state such

2013The second sentence of Wis. Stat. § 893.80 (4) mirrors this limitation of municipal entity liability.27 ¶50 The rule as to municipal entity liability has been repeated many times since our decision in Holytz and the enactment of Wis. Stat. § 893.80 : as to non-state governmental entities, "'the rule is liability——the exception is immunity.'" Kimps v. Hill, 200 Wis. 2d 1 , 10 n.6, 546 N.W.2d 151 (1996) 26 The court's abrogation of immunity in Holytz v. City of Milwaukee, 17 Wis. 2d 26 , 115 N.W.2d 618 (1962), was not limited to municipalities, and applied to public bodies within the state such

1967In Lang v. Cumberland (1962), 18 Wis. (2d) 157, 165, 118 N. W. (2d) 114 , in explaining the effect of Holytz in relation to sec. 81.15, we stated, ‘Before Holytz , liability of the municipality arose by virtue of sec. 81.15 upon the giving of notice.

1965In Lang v. Cumberland (1962), 18 Wis. (2d) 157, 165, 118 N. W. (2d) 114 , in explaining the effect of Holytz *578 in relation to sec. 81.15, we stated, Before Holytz , liability of the municipality arose by virtue of sec. 81.15 upon the giving of notice.

2013Id. at 40 .

2013The second sentence of Wis. Stat. § 893.80 (4) mirrors this limitation of municipal entity liability.27 ¶50 The rule as to municipal entity liability has been repeated many times since our decision in Holytz and the enactment of Wis. Stat. § 893.80 : as to non-state governmental entities, "'the rule is liability——the exception is immunity.'" Kimps v. Hill, 200 Wis. 2d 1 , 10 n.6, 546 N.W.2d 151 (1996) 26 The court's abrogation of immunity in Holytz v. City of Milwaukee, 17 Wis. 2d 26 , 115 N.W.2d 618 (1962), was not limited to municipalities, and applied to public bodies within the state such

2013The second sentence of Wis. Stat. § 893.80 (4) mirrors this limitation of municipal entity liability.27 ¶50 The rule as to municipal entity liability has been repeated many times since our decision in Holytz and the enactment of Wis. Stat. § 893.80 : as to non-state governmental entities, "'the rule is liability——the exception is immunity.'" Kimps v. Hill, 200 Wis. 2d 1 , 10 n.6, 546 N.W.2d 151 (1996) 26 The court's abrogation of immunity in Holytz v. City of Milwaukee, 17 Wis. 2d 26 , 115 N.W.2d 618 (1962), was not limited to municipalities, and applied to public bodies within the state such

2001The second risk of unfairness posed by the abrogation of the requirement of unanimity is that by not requiring the jurors to focus upon specific factual details the jury may conclude that "where there is smoke there is fire." Richardson, 526 U.S. at 819 .

2001The second risk of unfairness posed by the abrogation of the requirement of unanimity is that by not requiring the jurors to focus upon specific factual details the jury may conclude that "where there is smoke there is fire." Richardson, 526 U.S. at 819 .

1988Likewise, in Maier v. Racine County, 1 Wis. 2d 384 , 84 N.W.2d 76 (1957), this court similarly refused to interpret the prefatory language of secs. 59.07 and 59.07(64) as an abrogation of the rule of conservatism in implying county powers.

1988Likewise, in Maier v. Racine County, 1 Wis. 2d 384 , 84 N.W.2d 76 (1957), this court similarly refused to interpret the prefatory language of secs. 59.07 and 59.07(64) as an abrogation of the rule of conservatism in implying county powers.

1967We called for additional briefs on the question: “Does the abolition of governmental immunity render a city liable for a sidewalk found to be unsafe where such condition does not amount to what has been heretofore held to be an actionable defect, insufficiency or want of repair under sec. 81.15?” It has been suggested the court answered this question in Dunwiddie v. Rock County (1965), 28 Wis. (2d) 568, 573, 137 N. W. (2d) 388 , when we said: “In Holytz we contemplated the abrogation of the doctrine of governmental immunity would affect the area covered in sec. 81.15, Stats., and, in fact, poi

1962The difference between gov ernmental immunity from torts and the sovereign immunity of the state from suit was recognized in Apfelbacher v. State (1915), 160 Wis. 565 , 152 N. W. 144 .

1962The difference between gov ernmental immunity from torts and the sovereign immunity of the state from suit was recognized in Apfelbacher v. State (1915), 160 Wis. 565 , 152 N. W. 144 .

1911Co. 141 Wis. 411 , 123 N. W. 649 , the jury found the-plaintiff not guilty of contributory negligence, thus making a verity of the lesser density of fog, the reliance on his superior, the impossibility of conforming to the rule, the abrogation of the rule by nonuser and consent, and all those facts wlpch tended to support that finding.

1911Co. 141 Wis. 411 , 123 N. W. 649 , the jury found the-plaintiff not guilty of contributory negligence, thus making a verity of the lesser density of fog, the reliance on his superior, the impossibility of conforming to the rule, the abrogation of the rule by nonuser and consent, and all those facts wlpch tended to support that finding.