8 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kruckenberg v. Harveygreen2 sentences2024Applying this doctrine in these circumstances promotes “trial convenience and fairness” and reflects “the expectation that parties who are given the capacity to present their ‘entire controversies’ shall in fact do so.” Kruckenberg, 279 Wis. 2d 520, ¶27 (citation omitted). 2024Applying this doctrine in these circumstances promotes “trial convenience and fairness” and reflects “the expectation that parties who are given the capacity to present their ‘entire controversies’ shall in fact do so.” Kruckenberg, 279 Wis. 2d 520, ¶27 (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2000See State Farm, 225 Wis. 2d at 327 , 592 N.W.2d at 210 . 2000See State Farm, 225 Wis. 2d at 327 , 592 N.W.2d at 210 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.red2 sentences1993Accordingly, the Elliott Court held: [T]hat when a state agency "acting in a judicial capacity . . . resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate," [ United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422 (1966),] federal courts must give the agency's factfinding the same preclusive effect to which it would be entitled in the State's courts. 1993Accordingly, the Elliott Court held: [T]hat when a state agency "acting in a judicial capacity . . . resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate," [ United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422 (1966),] federal courts must give the agency's factfinding the same preclusive effect to which it would be entitled in the State's courts. | 1 | 1 |
University of Tennessee v. Elliottgreen2 sentences1993The Court looked to the policies underlying the full faith and credit clause, although the clause itself was inapplicable, to conclude that the policies underlying the clause are "served by giving preclusive effect to state administrative fact-finding rather than leaving the courts of a second forum, state or federal, free to reach conflicting results.” Id. at 799 (footnote omitted). 1993The Court looked to the policies underlying the full faith and credit clause, although the clause itself was inapplicable, to conclude that the policies underlying the clause are "served by giving preclusive effect to state administrative fact-finding rather than leaving the courts of a second forum, state or federal, free to reach conflicting results." Id. at 799 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Standefer v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1981See also Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 24 , 100 S. Ct. 1999, 2007-08 (1980) (nature of criminal prosecution makes application of doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel inappropriate. 1981See also Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 24 , 100 S. Ct. 1999, 2007-08 (1980) (nature of criminal prosecution makes application of doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel inappropriate. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McKee Family I, LLC v. City of Fitchburg
green
2 sentences2018The primary advantage of the bright-line Building Permit Rule is "predictability for land owners, purchasers, developers, municipalities[,] and *719 the courts." McKee , 374 Wis. 2d 487 , ¶ 43, 893 N.W.2d 12 . 2018The primary advantage of the bright-line Building Permit Rule is "predictability for land owners, purchasers, developers, municipalities[,] and *719 the courts." McKee , 374 Wis. 2d 487 , ¶ 43, 893 N.W.2d 12 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Erickson
green
2 sentences2004"The waiver rule exists to cultivate timely objections." State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758, 766 , 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999). 2004"The waiver rule exists to cultivate timely objections." State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758, 766 , 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Douglas-Hanson Co., Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co.
green
2 sentences2002The policies underlying this doctrine are: (1) to protect the parties' freedom to allocate economic risk by contract; 18 (2) to encourage the party best situated to assess the risk of economic loss — the purchaser — to *700 assume, allocate, or insure against that risk; and (3) to maintain the fundamental distinction between tort law and contract law. 19 Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 229 Wis. 2d 132 , 149 n.3, 598 N.W.2d 262 (Ct. App. 1999). 2002The policies underlying this doctrine are: (1) to protect the parties' freedom to allocate economic risk by contract; 18 (2) to encourage the party best situated to assess the risk of economic loss — the purchaser — to *700 assume, allocate, or insure against that risk; and (3) to maintain the fundamental distinction between tort law and contract law. 19 Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 229 Wis. 2d 132 , 149 n.3, 598 N.W.2d 262 (Ct. App. 1999). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.