58 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1869–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Department of Revenue v. Moebius Printing Co.green2 sentences2019We have described this test in the following terms: In Wisconsin, a party may raise an estoppel defense against the government "even when it acts in its governmental capacity." DOR v. Moebius Printing Co. , 89 Wis. 2d 610 , 634, 279 N.W.2d 213 (1979). 2019We have described this test in the following terms: In Wisconsin, a party may raise an estoppel defense against the government "even when it acts in its governmental capacity." DOR v. Moebius Printing Co. , 89 Wis. 2d 610 , 634, 279 N.W.2d 213 (1979). | 3 | 9 |
State v. Chippewa Cable Co.green2 sentences1997See Department of Revenue v. Moebius Printing Co., 89 Wis. 2d 610, 639 , 279 N.W.2d 213 (1979) (citing State v. Chippewa Cable Co., 21 Wis. 2d 598, 608-09 , 124 N.W.2d 616 (1963); Park Bldg. 1997See Department of Revenue v. Moebius Printing Co., 89 Wis. 2d 610, 639 , 279 N.W.2d 213 (1979) (citing State v. Chippewa Cable Co., 21 Wis. 2d 598, 608-09 , 124 N.W.2d 616 (1963); Park Bldg. | 2 | 2 |
Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Department of Taxationgreen2 sentences2005Keeping the above cases in mind, we further recognize that we do not apply equitable estoppel" 'as freely against governmental agencies as [we do] in the case of private persons.'" DOR v. Moebius Printing Co., 89 Wis. 2d 610, 638 , 279 N.W.2d 213 (1979) (quoting Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Dept. of Taxation, 260 Wis. 551 , 51 N.W.2d 796 (1952)). "'[I]t is not a happy occasion when the Government's hands, performing duties on behalf of the public, are tied by the acts and conduct of particular officials. . . .' " Milas v. Labor Ass'n of Wisconsin, Inc., 214 Wis. 2d 1, 14 , 571 N.W.2d 656 (1997) ( 2005Keeping the above cases in mind, we further recognize that we do not apply equitable estoppel" 'as freely against governmental agencies as [we do] in the case of private persons.'" DOR v. Moebius Printing Co., 89 Wis. 2d 610, 638 , 279 N.W.2d 213 (1979) (quoting Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Dept. of Taxation, 260 Wis. 551 , 51 N.W.2d 796 (1952)). "'[I]t is not a happy occasion when the Government's hands, performing duties on behalf of the public, are tied by the acts and conduct of particular officials. . . .' " Milas v. Labor Ass'n of Wisconsin, Inc., 214 Wis. 2d 1, 14 , 571 N.W.2d 656 (1997) ( | 1 | 4 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF RINTELMAN v. Rintelmangreen2 sentences2009See Rintelman v. Rintelman, 118 Wis. 2d 587, 596 , 348 N.W.2d 498 (1984) (seminal case applying the estoppel doctrine to a maintenance provision); Whitford v. Whitford, 2000 WI App 18, ¶¶ 13, 20 , 232 Wis. 2d 38 , 606 N.W.2d 563 (provision in divorce judgment for nonmodifiable maintenance is not against public policy and therefore equitable estoppel may be applied to a request for modification when parties' stipulation prohibits it). 2009See Rintelman v. Rintelman, 118 Wis. 2d 587, 596 , 348 N.W.2d 498 (1984) (seminal case applying the estoppel doctrine to a maintenance provision); Whitford v. Whitford, 2000 WI App 18, ¶¶ 13, 20 , 232 Wis. 2d 38 , 606 N.W.2d 563 (provision in divorce judgment for nonmodifiable maintenance is not against public policy and therefore equitable estoppel may be applied to a request for modification when parties' stipulation prohibits it). | 1 | 3 |
Rascar, Inc. v. Bank of Oregongreen2 sentences2023See Rascar, Inc. v. Bank of Or., 87 Wis. 2d 446, 454 , 275 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1978) (When a party is not diligent in their pursuit of an estoppel claim, their claim dies with the lack of diligence.). ¶15 In summary, Saputo’s CIP equipment does not satisfy the requirements of WIS. 2023See Rascar, Inc. v. Bank of Or., 87 Wis. 2d 446, 454 , 275 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1978) (When a party is not diligent in their pursuit of an estoppel claim, their claim dies with the lack of diligence.). ¶15 In summary, Saputo’s CIP equipment does not satisfy the requirements of WIS. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Szleszinski Ex Rel. Szleszinski v. Labor & Industry Review Commissiongreen1 sentence2012See id., ¶ 36 (citing Jalovec v. Jalovec, 2007 WI App 206, ¶ 11 , 305 Wis. 2d 467 , 739 N.W.2d 834 ). | 1 | 1 |
Jalovec v. Jalovecgreen2 sentences2012See id., ¶ 36 (citing Jalovec v. Jalovec, 2007 WI App 206, ¶ 11 , 305 Wis. 2d 467 , 739 N.W.2d 834 ). 2012See id., ¶ 36 (citing Jalovec v. Jalovec, 2007 WI App 206, ¶ 11 , 305 Wis. 2d 467 , 739 N.W.2d 834 ). | 1 | 1 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF WHITFORD v. Whitfordgreen2 sentences2009See Rintelman v. Rintelman, 118 Wis. 2d 587, 596 , 348 N.W.2d 498 (1984) (seminal case applying the estoppel doctrine to a maintenance provision); Whitford v. Whitford, 2000 WI App 18, ¶¶ 13, 20 , 232 Wis. 2d 38 , 606 N.W.2d 563 (provision in divorce judgment for nonmodifiable maintenance is not against public policy and therefore equitable estoppel may be applied to a request for modification when parties' stipulation prohibits it). 2009See Rintelman v. Rintelman, 118 Wis. 2d 587, 596 , 348 N.W.2d 498 (1984) (seminal case applying the estoppel doctrine to a maintenance provision); Whitford v. Whitford, 2000 WI App 18, ¶¶ 13, 20 , 232 Wis. 2d 38 , 606 N.W.2d 563 (provision in divorce judgment for nonmodifiable maintenance is not against public policy and therefore equitable estoppel may be applied to a request for modification when parties' stipulation prohibits it). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 259339green1 sentence2005Keeping the above cases in mind, we further recognize that we do not apply equitable estoppel" 'as freely against governmental agencies as [we do] in the case of private persons.'" DOR v. Moebius Printing Co., 89 Wis. 2d 610, 638 , 279 N.W.2d 213 (1979) (quoting Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Dept. of Taxation, 260 Wis. 551 , 51 N.W.2d 796 (1952)). "'[I]t is not a happy occasion when the Government's hands, performing duties on behalf of the public, are tied by the acts and conduct of particular officials. . . .' " Milas v. Labor Ass'n of Wisconsin, Inc., 214 Wis. 2d 1, 14 , 571 N.W.2d 656 (1997) ( | 1 | 1 |
Oney v. Schrauthgreen2 sentences2004See Oney v. Schrauth, 197 Wis. 2d 891, 904 , 541 N.W.2d 229 (Ct. App. 1995) (statutory notice of claim "requirements cannot be waived and no basis exists for the equitable doctrine of estoppel"); J.F. 2004See Oney v. Schrauth, 197 Wis. 2d 891, 904 , 541 N.W.2d 229 (Ct. App. 1995) (statutory notice of claim "requirements cannot be waived and no basis exists for the equitable doctrine of estoppel"); J.F. | 1 | 1 |
Richard W. v. Roberta Y.green1 sentence2004See, e.g., Richard "W" v. Roberta "Y", 658 N.Y.S.2d 506 (1997). [13] During an interview arranged by a psychologist, where Brendan attempted to interact with Selena, she began to cry and asked for her "daddy." When Randy was brought into the room, she continued to cry and repeatedly told Randy she wanted "to go home." [14] See Wis. Stat. §§ 767.47 (9) and 891.40 (unqualifiedly according the status of "natural father" to the husband of the mother when children are conceived by artificial insemination). [15] We permit Selena to assert an estoppel defense to the availability of genetic test resul | 1 | 1 |
Beane v. City of Sturgeon Baygreen2 sentences2002See Beane v. City of Sturgeon Bay, 112 Wis. 2d 609, 620-21 , 334 N.W.2d 235 (1983). 2002See Beane v. City of Sturgeon Bay, 112 Wis. 2d 609, 620-21 , 334 N.W.2d 235 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF NICHOLS v. Nicholsgreen2 sentences1999See Nichols v. Nichols, 162 Wis. 2d 96, 103 , 469 N.W.2d 619 (1991). 1999See Nichols v. Nichols, 162 Wis. 2d 96, 103 , 469 N.W.2d 619 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Sambs v. Nowakgreen2 sentences1998See Sambs v. Nowak, 47 Wis. 2d 158, 167 , 177 N.W.2d 144 (1970)(refusing to apply the estoppel doctrine to bar a governmental body from asserting defense of noncompliance with the notice of claim statute). 1998See Sambs v. Nowak, 47 Wis. 2d 158, 167 , 177 N.W.2d 144 (1970)(refusing to apply the estoppel doctrine to bar a governmental body from asserting defense of noncompliance with the notice of claim statute). | 1 | 1 |
| Miller Brewing Co. v. Labor & Industry Review Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
In Interest of LMCgreen1 sentence1998See Miller Brewing Co., 173 Wis. 2d at 706 n.1; B.J.N., 162 Wis. 2d at 656-57 ; L.M.C., 146 Wis. 2d at 390-92. [14] See, e.g., Foreway Express, Inc. v. Hilbert, 32 Wis. 2d 371, 372 , 145 N.W.2d 668 (1966); Seifert v. School Dist., 235 Wis. 489, 497 , 292 N.W. 286 (1940); Maynard v. DeVries, 224 Wis. 224, 228 , 272 N.W. 27 (1937). [15] See, e.g., Schwartz v. City of Milwaukee, 43 Wis. 2d 119, 128 , 168 N.W.2d 107 (1969). [16] See Sambs v. Nowak, 47 Wis. 2d 158, 167 , 177 N.W.2d 144 (1970)(refusing to apply the estoppel doctrine to bar a governmental body from asserting defense of noncompliance | 1 | 1 |
| In RE MARRIAGE OF HONORE v. Honoregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Schneider v. Mistelegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kellogg v. Village of Violagreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 507099green | 1 | 1 |
| City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hester v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Matter of Estate of Reistgreen | 1 | 1 |
| First National Bank of Kenosha v. Scalzogreen | 1 | 1 |
| First National Bank of Appleton v. Nenniggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware v. Admiral Corporationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jacksonville Paper Co. v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Argenti v. City of San Franciscogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Milas v. Labor Ass'n of Wisconsin, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021STAT. § 66.0413(1)(h) does not bar the corporation’s defense of equitable estoppel based on the City’s implementation of the order.12 The complaint sufficiently 11 “The estoppel doctrine, also called equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, focuses on the conduct of the parties.” Milas v. Labor Ass’n of Wis., Inc., 214 Wis. 2d 1, 11 , 571 N.W.2d 656 (1997). 2021STAT. § 66.0413(1)(h) does not bar the corporation’s defense of equitable estoppel based on the City’s implementation of the order.12 The complaint sufficiently 11 “The estoppel doctrine, also called equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, focuses on the conduct of the parties.” Milas v. Labor Ass’n of Wis., Inc., 214 Wis. 2d 1, 11 , 571 N.W.2d 656 (1997). | 3 | 2005–2021 |
Bliwas v. Bliwas
green
2 sentences1999One of the earliest Wisconsin cases to apply the estoppel doctrine in a divorce case was Bliwas v. Bliwas, 47 Wis. 2d 635 , 178 N.W.2d 35 (1970). 1999One of the earliest Wisconsin cases to apply the estoppel doctrine in a divorce case was Bliwas v. Bliwas, 47 Wis. 2d 635 , 178 N.W.2d 35 (1970). | 2 | 1984–1999 |
Kamikawa v. Keskinen
green
2 sentences1990This court has specifically declined to extend the doctrine to such situations." Id. at 711 , 172 N.W.2d at 27 . 1990This court has specifically declined to extend the doctrine to such situations." Id. at 711 , 172 N.W.2d at 27 . | 2 | 1970–1990 |
Knill v. Knill
green
2 sentences1987For a discussion of these cases, see Knill v. Knill, 510 A.2d 546 (Md. 1986). 1987For a discussion of these cases, see Knill v. Knill, 510 A.2d 546 (Md. 1986). | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Johnson v. Stone
green
2 sentences1957Co. v. York & Whitney Co. (1913), 215 Mass. 36 , 102 N. E. 366 , as follows : “ ‘The public policy thus declared supersedes the ordinary doctrine of estoppel, so far as that would interfere with the accomplishment of the dominant purpose of the act. 1921Co. 215 Mass. 36 , 102 N. E. 366 , the court says: “The public policy thus declared supersedes the ordinary doctrine of estoppel, so far as that would interfere with the accomplishment of the dominant purpose of the act. | 2 | 1921–1957 |
New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad v. York & Whitney Co.
green
2 sentences1957Co. v. York & Whitney Co. (1913), 215 Mass. 36 , 102 N. E. 366 , as follows : “ ‘The public policy thus declared supersedes the ordinary doctrine of estoppel, so far as that would interfere with the accomplishment of the dominant purpose of the act. 1921Co. 215 Mass. 36 , 102 N. E. 366 , the court says: “The public policy thus declared supersedes the ordinary doctrine of estoppel, so far as that would interfere with the accomplishment of the dominant purpose of the act. | 2 | 1921–1957 |
State Ex Rel. Susedik v. Knutson
green
2 sentences2023Susedik v. Knutson, 52 Wis. 2d 593, 596-97 , 191 N.W.2d 23 (1971), were met. 3 The Town’s original Notice to Kornreich, sent via certified mail on October 8, 2020, was returned to the Town as “unclaimed” on November 10, 2020. 2023Susedik v. Knutson, 52 Wis. 2d 593, 596-97 , 191 N.W.2d 23 (1971), were met. 3 The Town’s original Notice to Kornreich, sent via certified mail on October 8, 2020, was returned to the Town as “unclaimed” on November 10, 2020. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Drown
green
2 sentences2019State v. Drown , 2011 WI App 53 , ¶7, 332 Wis. 2d 765 , 797 N.W.2d 919 . ¶44 The City contends that the public's interests in the City collecting employee back contributions from the stagehands outweigh the harm caused to the stagehands if the City is not estopped from that collection effort. 2019State v. Drown , 2011 WI App 53 , ¶7, 332 Wis. 2d 765 , 797 N.W.2d 919 . ¶44 The City contends that the public's interests in the City collecting employee back contributions from the stagehands outweigh the harm caused to the stagehands if the City is not estopped from that collection effort. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Peterman v. Midwestern National Insurance
green
2 sentences2012Co., 177 Wis. 2d 682, 698 , 503 N.W.2d 312 (Ct. App. 1993) (the issue was "whether ERISA, under its federal common law, recognizes claims supported by the doctrine of estoppel" and thus the case is inapplicable to Wisconsin law); Valley Bancorporation v. Auto Owners Ins. 2012Co., 177 Wis. 2d 682, 698 , 503 N.W.2d 312 (Ct. App. 1993) (the issue was "whether ERISA, under its federal common law, recognizes claims supported by the doctrine of estoppel" and thus the case is inapplicable to Wisconsin law); Valley Bancorporation v. Auto Owners Ins. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Valley Bancorporation v. Auto Owners Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2012Co., 212 Wis. 2d 609, 619-23 , 569 N.W.2d 345 (Ct. App. 1997) (determined that underlying conduct of a cause of action determined insurance coverage (not the label in a verdict form) and the policy was read against the insurer in favor of coverage when insurer had not, through litigation, done well to distinguish what claims were being brought). 2012Co., 212 Wis. 2d 609, 619-23 , 569 N.W.2d 345 (Ct. App. 1997) (determined that underlying conduct of a cause of action determined insurance coverage (not the label in a verdict form) and the policy was read against the insurer in favor of coverage when insurer had not, through litigation, done well to distinguish what claims were being brought). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF ROSS v. Ross
green
2 sentences1999Indeed, the major issue in Rintelman was whether Mr. Rintelman should be required to pay any maintenance at all after his ex-wife's remarriage, and in Ross v. Ross, 149 Wis. 2d 713 , 439 N.W.2d 679 (Ct. App. 1989), this court employed the estoppel doctrine to prevent the modification of the payment made under 26 U.S.C. § 71 (a)(1) (1984) to Mrs. Ross. 2 Moreover, Nichols strongly suggests that the supreme court anticipated that other stipulations besides those governing the amount of maintenance would fall within the estoppel doctrine. 1999Indeed, the major issue in Rintelman was whether Mr. Rintelman should be required to pay any maintenance at all after his ex-wife's remarriage, and in Ross v. Ross, 149 Wis. 2d 713 , 439 N.W.2d 679 (Ct. App. 1989), this court employed the estoppel doctrine to prevent the modification of the payment made under 26 U.S.C. § 71 (a)(1) (1984) to Mrs. Ross. 2 Moreover, Nichols strongly suggests that the supreme court anticipated that other stipulations besides those governing the amount of maintenance would fall within the estoppel doctrine. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Maynard v. De Vries
green
2 sentences1998See Miller Brewing Co., 173 Wis. 2d at 706 n.1; B.J.N., 162 Wis. 2d at 656-57 ; L.M.C., 146 Wis. 2d at 390-92. [14] See, e.g., Foreway Express, Inc. v. Hilbert, 32 Wis. 2d 371, 372 , 145 N.W.2d 668 (1966); Seifert v. School Dist., 235 Wis. 489, 497 , 292 N.W. 286 (1940); Maynard v. DeVries, 224 Wis. 224, 228 , 272 N.W. 27 (1937). [15] See, e.g., Schwartz v. City of Milwaukee, 43 Wis. 2d 119, 128 , 168 N.W.2d 107 (1969). [16] See Sambs v. Nowak, 47 Wis. 2d 158, 167 , 177 N.W.2d 144 (1970)(refusing to apply the estoppel doctrine to bar a governmental body from asserting defense of noncompliance 1998See Miller Brewing Co., 173 Wis. 2d at 706 n.1; B.J.N., 162 Wis. 2d at 656-57 ; L.M.C., 146 Wis. 2d at 390-92. [14] See, e.g., Foreway Express, Inc. v. Hilbert, 32 Wis. 2d 371, 372 , 145 N.W.2d 668 (1966); Seifert v. School Dist., 235 Wis. 489, 497 , 292 N.W. 286 (1940); Maynard v. DeVries, 224 Wis. 224, 228 , 272 N.W. 27 (1937). [15] See, e.g., Schwartz v. City of Milwaukee, 43 Wis. 2d 119, 128 , 168 N.W.2d 107 (1969). [16] See Sambs v. Nowak, 47 Wis. 2d 158, 167 , 177 N.W.2d 144 (1970)(refusing to apply the estoppel doctrine to bar a governmental body from asserting defense of noncompliance | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| In Interest of BJN green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Foreway Express, Inc. v. City of Hilbert
green
2 sentences1998See Miller Brewing Co., 173 Wis. 2d at 706 n.1; B.J.N., 162 Wis. 2d at 656-57 ; L.M.C., 146 Wis. 2d at 390-92. [14] See, e.g., Foreway Express, Inc. v. Hilbert, 32 Wis. 2d 371, 372 , 145 N.W.2d 668 (1966); Seifert v. School Dist., 235 Wis. 489, 497 , 292 N.W. 286 (1940); Maynard v. DeVries, 224 Wis. 224, 228 , 272 N.W. 27 (1937). [15] See, e.g., Schwartz v. City of Milwaukee, 43 Wis. 2d 119, 128 , 168 N.W.2d 107 (1969). [16] See Sambs v. Nowak, 47 Wis. 2d 158, 167 , 177 N.W.2d 144 (1970)(refusing to apply the estoppel doctrine to bar a governmental body from asserting defense of noncompliance 1998See Miller Brewing Co., 173 Wis. 2d at 706 n.1; B.J.N., 162 Wis. 2d at 656-57 ; L.M.C., 146 Wis. 2d at 390-92. [14] See, e.g., Foreway Express, Inc. v. Hilbert, 32 Wis. 2d 371, 372 , 145 N.W.2d 668 (1966); Seifert v. School Dist., 235 Wis. 489, 497 , 292 N.W. 286 (1940); Maynard v. DeVries, 224 Wis. 224, 228 , 272 N.W. 27 (1937). [15] See, e.g., Schwartz v. City of Milwaukee, 43 Wis. 2d 119, 128 , 168 N.W.2d 107 (1969). [16] See Sambs v. Nowak, 47 Wis. 2d 158, 167 , 177 N.W.2d 144 (1970)(refusing to apply the estoppel doctrine to bar a governmental body from asserting defense of noncompliance | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Schwartz v. City of Milwaukee
green
2 sentences1998See Miller Brewing Co., 173 Wis. 2d at 706 n.1; B.J.N., 162 Wis. 2d at 656-57 ; L.M.C., 146 Wis. 2d at 390-92. [14] See, e.g., Foreway Express, Inc. v. Hilbert, 32 Wis. 2d 371, 372 , 145 N.W.2d 668 (1966); Seifert v. School Dist., 235 Wis. 489, 497 , 292 N.W. 286 (1940); Maynard v. DeVries, 224 Wis. 224, 228 , 272 N.W. 27 (1937). [15] See, e.g., Schwartz v. City of Milwaukee, 43 Wis. 2d 119, 128 , 168 N.W.2d 107 (1969). [16] See Sambs v. Nowak, 47 Wis. 2d 158, 167 , 177 N.W.2d 144 (1970)(refusing to apply the estoppel doctrine to bar a governmental body from asserting defense of noncompliance 1998See Miller Brewing Co., 173 Wis. 2d at 706 n.1; B.J.N., 162 Wis. 2d at 656-57 ; L.M.C., 146 Wis. 2d at 390-92. [14] See, e.g., Foreway Express, Inc. v. Hilbert, 32 Wis. 2d 371, 372 , 145 N.W.2d 668 (1966); Seifert v. School Dist., 235 Wis. 489, 497 , 292 N.W. 286 (1940); Maynard v. DeVries, 224 Wis. 224, 228 , 272 N.W. 27 (1937). [15] See, e.g., Schwartz v. City of Milwaukee, 43 Wis. 2d 119, 128 , 168 N.W.2d 107 (1969). [16] See Sambs v. Nowak, 47 Wis. 2d 158, 167 , 177 N.W.2d 144 (1970)(refusing to apply the estoppel doctrine to bar a governmental body from asserting defense of noncompliance | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Seifert v. School District No. 1 of the City of Cudahy
neutral
2 sentences1998See Miller Brewing Co., 173 Wis. 2d at 706 n.1; B.J.N., 162 Wis. 2d at 656-57 ; L.M.C., 146 Wis. 2d at 390-92. [14] See, e.g., Foreway Express, Inc. v. Hilbert, 32 Wis. 2d 371, 372 , 145 N.W.2d 668 (1966); Seifert v. School Dist., 235 Wis. 489, 497 , 292 N.W. 286 (1940); Maynard v. DeVries, 224 Wis. 224, 228 , 272 N.W. 27 (1937). [15] See, e.g., Schwartz v. City of Milwaukee, 43 Wis. 2d 119, 128 , 168 N.W.2d 107 (1969). [16] See Sambs v. Nowak, 47 Wis. 2d 158, 167 , 177 N.W.2d 144 (1970)(refusing to apply the estoppel doctrine to bar a governmental body from asserting defense of noncompliance 1998See Miller Brewing Co., 173 Wis. 2d at 706 n.1; B.J.N., 162 Wis. 2d at 656-57 ; L.M.C., 146 Wis. 2d at 390-92. [14] See, e.g., Foreway Express, Inc. v. Hilbert, 32 Wis. 2d 371, 372 , 145 N.W.2d 668 (1966); Seifert v. School Dist., 235 Wis. 489, 497 , 292 N.W. 286 (1940); Maynard v. DeVries, 224 Wis. 224, 228 , 272 N.W. 27 (1937). [15] See, e.g., Schwartz v. City of Milwaukee, 43 Wis. 2d 119, 128 , 168 N.W.2d 107 (1969). [16] See Sambs v. Nowak, 47 Wis. 2d 158, 167 , 177 N.W.2d 144 (1970)(refusing to apply the estoppel doctrine to bar a governmental body from asserting defense of noncompliance | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Schmitz v. Schmitz green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Mannino v. Davenport green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Winkie, Inc. v. Heritage Bank of Whitefish Bay green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| State v. City of Green Bay green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Gillespie v. Riley Management Corp. green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Southern Pacific Co. v. United States neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Del. v. Eddy green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Knauf & Tesch Co. v. Elkhart Lake Sand & Gravel Co. green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Jeske v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Welch v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Schandelmeier v. Brown green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Bratt v. Peterson green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Active Co. v. Slate neutral | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Rensink v. Wallenfang green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Colvin's Baking Co. v. Northwestern National Insurance neutral | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| McGregor v. United States neutral | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Gaskill v. Gladys Belle Oil Co. green | 1 | 1944–1944 |
| Nelson v. City of Superior green | 1 | 1944–1944 |
| Gist v. Johnson-Carey Co. green | 1 | 1944–1944 |
| State ex rel. Schintgen v. Mayor of La Crosse neutral | 1 | 1942–1942 |
| Paine Lumber Co. v. City of Oshkosh green | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| Chandler v. Gault neutral | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| Jacobsen v. Whitely green | 1 | 1915–1915 |
| Krower v. . Reynolds neutral | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.