8 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Brunton v. NUVELL CREDIT CORP.green1 sentence2016See Brunton, 325 Wis. 2d 135, ¶ 36 . | 1 | 1 |
Hanz Trucking, Inc. v. Harris Brothers Co.green2 sentences1975Hanz Trucking, Inc. v. Harris Brothers Co. (1965), 29 Wis. 2d 254, 264, 265 , 138 N. W. 2d 238 . 1975Hanz Trucking, Inc. v. Harris Brothers Co. (1965), 29 Wis. 2d 254, 264, 265 , 138 N. W. 2d 238 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Swedish American National Bank of Minneapolis v. Koebernick
green
2 sentences1966Bank v. Koebernick, 136 Wis. 473, 479 , 117 N. W. 1020 . ‘Since an intention to relinquish an existing right or advantage is generally regarded as an essential of a waiver, it follows that it must be shown by the party claiming a waiver that the person against whom the waiver is asserted had at the time knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of his rights or of the facts upon which they depended. 1966Bank v. Koebernick, 136 Wis. 473, 479 , 117 N. W. 1020 . ‘Since an intention to relinquish an existing right or advantage is generally regarded as an essential of a waiver, it follows that it must be shown by the party claiming a waiver that the person against whom the waiver is asserted had at the time knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of his rights or of the facts upon which they depended. | 3 | 1957–1966 |
Consumer's Co-Op of Walworth County v. Olsen
green
1 sentence1997Evidence sufficient to establish waiver must show that" 'the person against whom the waiver is asserted had at the time knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of his [or her] rights or facts upon which they depended.'" Id. (quoted source omitted). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Gonzalez Ex Rel. Bichler v. City of Franklin
green
1 sentence1988Moreover, we have stated that "intent to waive may be inferred as a matter of law from the conduct of the parties ....” Gonzalez, 137 Wis. 2d at 129 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Mulvaney v. Tri State Truck & Auto Body, Inc.
green
2 sentences1988Evidence sufficient to establish waiver must establish that "the person against whom the waiver is asserted had at the time knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of his rights or facts upon which they depended.” Mulvaney v. Tri State Truck & Auto Body, Inc., 70 Wis. 2d 760, 768 , 235 N.W.2d 460 (1975). 1988Evidence sufficient to establish waiver must establish that "the person against whom the waiver is asserted had at the time knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of his rights or facts upon which they depended.” Mulvaney v. Tri State Truck & Auto Body, Inc., 70 Wis. 2d 760, 768 , 235 N.W.2d 460 (1975). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Carr Packing Co. v. Frank
neutral
1 sentence1969This limitation *340 does not apply with respect to claims made or suits brought against the following insureds: “ (a) the named insured or, if the named insured is an individual, his spouse, if a resident of the same household; “(b) a bailee or borrower of the automobile or an employee of either of them or of the named insured; “(c) if the named insured is classified and rated as a truckman, any person or organization, or any agent or employee thereof, engaged in the business of transporting property by automobile for the named insured or for others; subject nevertheless to the limitations of | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Wagman v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences1969This limitation *340 does not apply with respect to claims made or suits brought against the following insureds: “ (a) the named insured or, if the named insured is an individual, his spouse, if a resident of the same household; “(b) a bailee or borrower of the automobile or an employee of either of them or of the named insured; “(c) if the named insured is classified and rated as a truckman, any person or organization, or any agent or employee thereof, engaged in the business of transporting property by automobile for the named insured or for others; subject nevertheless to the limitations of 1969This limitation *340 does not apply with respect to claims made or suits brought against the following insureds: “ (a) the named insured or, if the named insured is an individual, his spouse, if a resident of the same household; “(b) a bailee or borrower of the automobile or an employee of either of them or of the named insured; “(c) if the named insured is classified and rated as a truckman, any person or organization, or any agent or employee thereof, engaged in the business of transporting property by automobile for the named insured or for others; subject nevertheless to the limitations of | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.