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.
8 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
The Yacht Club at Sister Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Village of Sister Baygreen1 sentence2021See Yacht Club, 385 Wis. 2d 158, ¶20 . ¶11 It is undisputed that the Carlborgs did not comply with either the notice of injury requirement or the notice of claim requirement before filing the instant lawsuit against Mount View. | 1 | 1 |
Vanstone v. Town of Delafieldgreen2 sentences2020See Vanstone v. Town of Delafield, 191 Wis. 2d 586, 593 , 530 N.W.2d 16 (Ct. App. 1995). 2020See Vanstone v. Town of Delafield, 191 Wis. 2d 586, 593 , 530 N.W.2d 16 (Ct. App. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Joyce S. Clark v. League of Wisconsin Municipalities Mutual Insurance Company
green
1 sentence2026Whether a plaintiff has satisfied the notice of injury requirement, “either through formal notice or substantial compliance, is ultimately a question of law.” Clark, 397 Wis. 2d 220, ¶16 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Moran v. Milwaukee County
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. County of Oneida
green
2 sentences2020In addition, the court determined the Eberts were not entitled to an exception under the three-factor test set forth in E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. County of Oneida, 2011 WI 71 , 335 Wis. 2d 720 , 800 N.W.2d 421 . 2020In addition, the court determined the Eberts were not entitled to an exception under the three-factor test set forth in E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. County of Oneida, 2011 WI 71 , 335 Wis. 2d 720 , 800 N.W.2d 421 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County
green
2 sentences2020Kalal v. Circuit Ct. for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶46 , 271 Wis. 2d 633 , 681 N.W.2d 110 (We interpret statutes “reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results.”). ¶19 Additionally, the Eberts’ interpretation is inconsistent with the purpose of the notice of injury requirement, which is to provide governmental defendants with the opportunity to investigate and evaluate potential claims. 2020Kalal v. Circuit Ct. for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶46 , 271 Wis. 2d 633 , 681 N.W.2d 110 (We interpret statutes “reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results.”). ¶19 Additionally, the Eberts’ interpretation is inconsistent with the purpose of the notice of injury requirement, which is to provide governmental defendants with the opportunity to investigate and evaluate potential claims. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Gillen v. City of Neenah
green
2 sentences2020The court also rejected the Eberts’ assertion that they were entitled to an exception to the notice of injury requirement under our supreme court’s reasoning in Gillen v. City of Neenah, 219 Wis. 2d 806 , 580 N.W.2d 628 (1998). 2020The court also rejected the Eberts’ assertion that they were entitled to an exception to the notice of injury requirement under our supreme court’s reasoning in Gillen v. City of Neenah, 219 Wis. 2d 806 , 580 N.W.2d 628 (1998). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ocampo v. City of Racine
green
2 sentences1981In Ocampo v. Racine, 28 Wis.2d 506 , 137 N.W.2d 477 (1965), the court considered the effect of the failure to comply with the notice of injury provision under sec. 81.15,1965 Stats. 11 That statute provided: “. . . 1981In Ocampo v. Racine, 28 Wis.2d 506 , 137 N.W.2d 477 (1965), the court considered the effect of the failure to comply with the notice of injury provision under sec. 81.15,1965 Stats. 11 That statute provided: “. . . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Pattermann v. City of Whitewater
green
2 sentences1968This notice-of-injury requirement was discussed in Pattermann v. Whitewater (1966), 32 Wis. 2d 350 , 145 N. W. 2d 705 , and was contrasted with a requirement of filing of a claim under sec. 62.25, Stats. 1968This notice-of-injury requirement was discussed in Pattermann v. Whitewater (1966), 32 Wis. 2d 350 , 145 N. W. 2d 705 , and was contrasted with a requirement of filing of a claim under sec. 62.25, Stats. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Manas v. Hammond
neutral
2 sentences1964Two terms are used in every discussion of this question — “right” and “remedy.” In Manas v. Hammond (1934), 216 Wis. 285, 287 , 257 N. W. 139 , this court held that the notice-of-injury requirement of sec. 330.19 (5), Stats., was a condition precedent, rather than a statute of limitation, because the time requirement could not be said to affect either the right or the remedy directly, and was thus only a condition which must be fulfilled in order to secure the aid of the court. 1964Two terms are used in every discussion of this question — “right” and “remedy.” In Manas v. Hammond (1934), 216 Wis. 285, 287 , 257 N. W. 139 , this court held that the notice-of-injury requirement of sec. 330.19 (5), Stats., was a condition precedent, rather than a statute of limitation, because the time requirement could not be said to affect either the right or the remedy directly, and was thus only a condition which must be fulfilled in order to secure the aid of the court. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Steffen v. Little
green
1 sentence1957Another case decided this day deals with retrospective amendment of statutes governing procedure. *337 (See Steffen v. Little, post, p. 350, 86 N. W. (2d) 622 .) By the Court. —Order affirmed. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.