8 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harder v. Pfitzingergreen2 sentences2023Co., 2012 WI 30 , ¶33 & n.13, 339 Wis. 2d 291 , 811 N.W.2d 351 (“Longstanding Wisconsin law provides that the pendency of a claim for attorney fees under a fee-shifting statute does not affect the finality of a judgment that disposes of the matter in litigation.”); Leske v. Leske, 185 Wis. 2d 628, 633 , 517 N.W.2d 538 (Ct. App. 1994) (same); see also Harder v. Pfitzinger, 2004 WI 102 , ¶17 & n.8, 274 Wis. 2d 324 , 682 N.W.2d 398 . ¶58 Nancy and Tim argue that they should not have had to bring a second, separate appeal after the April 1, 2021 order was entered. 2023Co., 2012 WI 30 , ¶33 & n.13, 339 Wis. 2d 291 , 811 N.W.2d 351 (“Longstanding Wisconsin law provides that the pendency of a claim for attorney fees under a fee-shifting statute does not affect the finality of a judgment that disposes of the matter in litigation.”); Leske v. Leske, 185 Wis. 2d 628, 633 , 517 N.W.2d 538 (Ct. App. 1994) (same); see also Harder v. Pfitzinger, 2004 WI 102 , ¶17 & n.8, 274 Wis. 2d 324 , 682 N.W.2d 398 . ¶58 Nancy and Tim argue that they should not have had to bring a second, separate appeal after the April 1, 2021 order was entered. | 2 | 2 |
Admiral Insurance v. Paper Converting Machine Co.green2 sentences2025Co., 339 Wis. 2d 291 , ¶33 n.14 (explaining that this court has long held “that the pendency of a claim for costs and fees does not affect the appealability of a judgment that otherwise disposes of the matters in litigation”); see, e.g., Leske v. Leske, 185 Wis. 2d 628, 633 , 517 N.W.2d 538 (Ct. App. 1994) (relating to a claim for attorney fees under a fee-shifting statute); McConley v. T.C. 2023Co., 2012 WI 30 , ¶33 & n.13, 339 Wis. 2d 291 , 811 N.W.2d 351 (“Longstanding Wisconsin law provides that the pendency of a claim for attorney fees under a fee-shifting statute does not affect the finality of a judgment that disposes of the matter in litigation.”); Leske v. Leske, 185 Wis. 2d 628, 633 , 517 N.W.2d 538 (Ct. App. 1994) (same); see also Harder v. Pfitzinger, 2004 WI 102 , ¶17 & n.8, 274 Wis. 2d 324 , 682 N.W.2d 398 . ¶58 Nancy and Tim argue that they should not have had to bring a second, separate appeal after the April 1, 2021 order was entered. | 1 | 5 |
Leske v. Leskegreen2 sentences2025Co., 339 Wis. 2d 291 , ¶33 n.14 (explaining that this court has long held “that the pendency of a claim for costs and fees does not affect the appealability of a judgment that otherwise disposes of the matters in litigation”); see, e.g., Leske v. Leske, 185 Wis. 2d 628, 633 , 517 N.W.2d 538 (Ct. App. 1994) (relating to a claim for attorney fees under a fee-shifting statute); McConley v. T.C. 2025Co., 339 Wis. 2d 291 , ¶33 n.14 (explaining that this court has long held “that the pendency of a claim for costs and fees does not affect the appealability of a judgment that otherwise disposes of the matters in litigation”); see, e.g., Leske v. Leske, 185 Wis. 2d 628, 633 , 517 N.W.2d 538 (Ct. App. 1994) (relating to a claim for attorney fees under a fee-shifting statute); McConley v. T.C. | 1 | 4 |
Shuput v. Lauergreen1 sentence2023See Anchor Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Coyle, 148 Wis. 2d 94, 101 , 435 N.W.2d 727 (1989) (holding that a foreclosure judgment is final and appealable because “[t]he proceedings after the judgment of foreclosure … ‘are analogous to the execution of a judgment and simply enforce the parties’ rights which have been adjudicated” (quoting Shuput, 109 Wis. 2d at 173 )). 13 No. 2022AP1683 ¶35 We do not discern a meaningful distinction between the pendency of the calculation of the cost of razing from the pendency of the calculation of attorney fees or the confirmation of a foreclosure sale, in terms of the | 1 | 1 |
Anchor Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Coylegreen2 sentences2023See Anchor Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Coyle, 148 Wis. 2d 94, 101 , 435 N.W.2d 727 (1989) (holding that a foreclosure judgment is final and appealable because “[t]he proceedings after the judgment of foreclosure … ‘are analogous to the execution of a judgment and simply enforce the parties’ rights which have been adjudicated” (quoting Shuput, 109 Wis. 2d at 173 )). 13 No. 2022AP1683 ¶35 We do not discern a meaningful distinction between the pendency of the calculation of the cost of razing from the pendency of the calculation of attorney fees or the confirmation of a foreclosure sale, in terms of the 2023See Anchor Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Coyle, 148 Wis. 2d 94, 101 , 435 N.W.2d 727 (1989) (holding that a foreclosure judgment is final and appealable because “[t]he proceedings after the judgment of foreclosure … ‘are analogous to the execution of a judgment and simply enforce the parties’ rights which have been adjudicated” (quoting Shuput, 109 Wis. 2d at 173 )). 13 No. 2022AP1683 ¶35 We do not discern a meaningful distinction between the pendency of the calculation of the cost of razing from the pendency of the calculation of attorney fees or the confirmation of a foreclosure sale, in terms of the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McConley v. T. C. Visions, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025Visions, Inc., 2016 WI App 74, ¶9 , 371 Wis. 2d 658 , 885 N.W.2d 816 (relating to a claim for attorney fees under a contract). ¶32 We observe first that the text of the May 24 order reveals that there was no overtrial motion before the circuit court when the order was entered. 2025Visions, Inc., 2016 WI App 74, ¶9 , 371 Wis. 2d 658 , 885 N.W.2d 816 (relating to a claim for attorney fees under a contract). ¶32 We observe first that the text of the May 24 order reveals that there was no overtrial motion before the circuit court when the order was entered. | 2 | 2020–2025 |
Laube v. City of Owen
green
2 sentences2016Leske, 185 Wis. 2d at 633 , holds that "the pendency of a claim for attorney's fees under a specific fee-shifting statute does not render a judgment or order nonfinal, provided that the judgment or order disposes of all of the substantive causes of action between the parties." See also Hartman v. Winnebago Cty., 216 Wis. 2d 419, 434 , 574 N.W.2d 222 (1998) ("an award of attorneys' fees based upon the status of a prevailing party is a consideration separate from the underlying merits of the cause of action" and the judgment was final even though claim for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 re 2016Leske, 185 Wis. 2d at 633 , holds that "the pendency of a claim for attorney's fees under a specific fee-shifting statute does not render a judgment or order nonfinal, provided that the judgment or order disposes of all of the substantive causes of action between the parties." See also Hartman v. Winnebago Cty., 216 Wis. 2d 419, 434 , 574 N.W.2d 222 (1998) ("an award of attorneys' fees based upon the status of a prevailing party is a consideration separate from the underlying merits of the cause of action" and the judgment was final even though claim for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 re | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF CAMPBELL v. Campbell
green
1 sentence2016Leske, 185 Wis. 2d at 633 , holds that "the pendency of a claim for attorney's fees under a specific fee-shifting statute does not render a judgment or order nonfinal, provided that the judgment or order disposes of all of the substantive causes of action between the parties." See also Hartman v. Winnebago Cty., 216 Wis. 2d 419, 434 , 574 N.W.2d 222 (1998) ("an award of attorneys' fees based upon the status of a prevailing party is a consideration separate from the underlying merits of the cause of action" and the judgment was final even though claim for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 re | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hartman v. Winnebago County
green
2 sentences2016Leske, 185 Wis. 2d at 633 , holds that "the pendency of a claim for attorney's fees under a specific fee-shifting statute does not render a judgment or order nonfinal, provided that the judgment or order disposes of all of the substantive causes of action between the parties." See also Hartman v. Winnebago Cty., 216 Wis. 2d 419, 434 , 574 N.W.2d 222 (1998) ("an award of attorneys' fees based upon the status of a prevailing party is a consideration separate from the underlying merits of the cause of action" and the judgment was final even though claim for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 re 2016Leske, 185 Wis. 2d at 633 , holds that "the pendency of a claim for attorney's fees under a specific fee-shifting statute does not render a judgment or order nonfinal, provided that the judgment or order disposes of all of the substantive causes of action between the parties." See also Hartman v. Winnebago Cty., 216 Wis. 2d 419, 434 , 574 N.W.2d 222 (1998) ("an award of attorneys' fees based upon the status of a prevailing party is a consideration separate from the underlying merits of the cause of action" and the judgment was final even though claim for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 re | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.