judicial restraint which the legislature doctrine (Wisconsin) · Go Syfert
← Wisconsin issues

judicial restraint which the legislature doctrine in Wisconsin

8 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2020 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Nodell Investment Corp. v. City of Glendalegreen
wis · 1977 · cited in 8 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1980–2020
2 sentences

1999Corp. v. City of Glendale, 78 Wis. 2d 416, 424 , 254 N.W.2d 310, 315 (1977), the supreme court discussed the exhaustion requirement: The rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a doctrine of judicial restraint which the legislature and the courts have evolved in drawing the boundary line between administrative and judicial spheres of activity.

1999Corp. v. City of Glendale, 78 Wis. 2d 416, 424 , 254 N.W.2d 310, 315 (1977), the supreme court discussed the exhaustion requirement: The rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a doctrine of judicial restraint which the legislature and the courts have evolved in drawing the boundary line between administrative and judicial spheres of activity.

38
Castelaz v. City of Milwaukeegreen
wis · 1980 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1992–1994
2 sentences

1994Castelaz v. Milwaukee, 94 Wis. 2d 513, 532 , 289 N.W.2d 259, 268 (1980) (quoting Nodell, 78 Wis. 2d at 424 , 254 N.W.2d at 315 )....

1994Castelaz v. Milwaukee, 94 Wis. 2d 513, 532 , 289 N.W.2d 259, 268 (1980) (quoting Nodell, 78 Wis. 2d at 424 , 254 N.W.2d at 315 )....

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 42u.s.c.1983 (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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check