55 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 15 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 |
|---|---|---|
Northern States Power Co. v. Bughergreen2 sentences2026Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, “a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties [or their privies] as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings.” Northern States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 550 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995) (alteration in original; emphasis added; citation omitted). 2026Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, “a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties [or their privies] as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings.” Northern States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 550 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995) (alteration in original; emphasis added; citation omitted). | 6 | 21 |
Kruckenberg v. Harveygreen2 sentences2025Importantly, “[w]hen the doctrine of claim preclusion is applied, a final judgment on the merits will ordinarily bar all matters ‘which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings.’” Id. (emphasis added; citation omitted). ¶10 Claim preclusion is “designed to draw a line between the meritorious claim on the one hand and the vexatious, repetitious and needless claim on the other hand.” Northern States Power Co., 189 Wis. 2d at 550 (citation omitted). 2025(Formatting altered.) Although Goeben makes this general assertion and cites Kruckenberg for its discussion of the “‘special circumstances’ exception,” see Kruckenberg, 279 Wis. 2d 520, ¶¶37-39 , he fails to develop an argument explaining why the facts in this case amount to an “extraordinary reason,” see Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d at 646-47 (stating that we need not address undeveloped arguments). ¶19 Goeben further cites Kruckenberg for the following statement: “Several other published decisions of the court of appeals appear to 10 No. 2024AP702 adopt fairness as the fourth element in the doctrine | 6 | 13 |
Lindas v. Cadygreen2 sentences2022See id. at 564-65 (“‘the extent of the power of an administrative body or agency to reconsider its own findings or orders has nothing to do with [the doctrine of claim preclusion]; the latter doctrine applies solely to courts’” (alteration and quoted source omitted)). 2021Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, “a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceeding.” Lindas v. Cady (II), 183 Wis. 2d 547, 558 , 515 N.W.2d 458 (1994) (citation omitted). | 3 | 10 |
Menard, Inc. v. Liteway Lighting Productsgreen2 sentences2025In Menard, our state supreme court stated that, under the doctrine of claim preclusion, “a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties [or their privies] as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings.” Menard, 282 Wis. 2d 582, ¶26 (alteration in original; citation omitted). 2009The City's argument is claim, preclusion. " 'Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties [or their privies] as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings.'" Kowske v. Ameriquest Mortgage, 2009 WI App 45, ¶ 19 , 317 Wis. 2d 500 , 767 N.W.2d 309 (quoting Menard, Inc. v. Liteway Lighting Prods., 2005 WI 98, ¶ 26 , 282 Wis. 2d 582 , 698 N.W.2d 738 ) (alterations in Kowske). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Huebnergreen2 sentences2024See State v. Huebner, 2000 WI 59, ¶12 , 235 Wis. 2d 486 , 611 N.W.2d 727 (explaining the purposes of the forfeiture rule). ¶27 Having determined that the Veaches forfeited their argument that we should apply the claim preclusion standard for declaratory judgment actions, we 13 No. 2023AP410 now describe the ordinary claim preclusion standard for determining the identity of claims between causes of action in two separate cases. 2024See State v. Huebner, 2000 WI 59, ¶12 , 235 Wis. 2d 486 , 611 N.W.2d 727 (explaining the purposes of the forfeiture rule). ¶27 Having determined that the Veaches forfeited their argument that we should apply the claim preclusion standard for declaratory judgment actions, we 13 No. 2023AP410 now describe the ordinary claim preclusion standard for determining the identity of claims between causes of action in two separate cases. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pettitgreen2 sentences2025(Formatting altered.) Although Goeben makes this general assertion and cites Kruckenberg for its discussion of the “‘special circumstances’ exception,” see Kruckenberg, 279 Wis. 2d 520, ¶¶37-39 , he fails to develop an argument explaining why the facts in this case amount to an “extraordinary reason,” see Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d at 646-47 (stating that we need not address undeveloped arguments). ¶19 Goeben further cites Kruckenberg for the following statement: “Several other published decisions of the court of appeals appear to 10 No. 2024AP702 adopt fairness as the fourth element in the doctrine 2025We need not address arguments that are unsupported by legal authority, see Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d at 646-47 , and we consider arguments premised on false legal citations as unsupported by legal authority within the meaning of Pettit. 12 No. 2024AP2274 B. ¶29 Graham-Jackson next argues that his claims against Martin are not barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. | 1 | 2 |
Vanstone v. Town of Delafieldgreen2 sentences2025See Kruckenberg v. Harvey, 2005 WI 43, ¶19 , 279 Wis. 2d 520 , 694 N.W.2d 879 ; see also Vanstone v. Town of Delafield, 191 Wis. 2d 586, 595 , 530 N.W.2d 16 (Ct. App. 1995) (“[W]e may affirm on grounds different than those relied on by the [circuit] court.”). 11 No. 2024AP702 even if the claim was not actually litigated, so long as the party could have raised it.”). 2025See Kruckenberg v. Harvey, 2005 WI 43, ¶19 , 279 Wis. 2d 520 , 694 N.W.2d 879 ; see also Vanstone v. Town of Delafield, 191 Wis. 2d 586, 595 , 530 N.W.2d 16 (Ct. App. 1995) (“[W]e may affirm on grounds different than those relied on by the [circuit] court.”). 11 No. 2024AP702 even if the claim was not actually litigated, so long as the party could have raised it.”). | 1 | 1 |
Koshick v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Evers v. Sullivan, 2000 WI App 144, ¶5 , 237 Wis. 2d 759 , 615 N.W.2d 680 . ¶7 “Sovereign immunity derives from article IV, section 27 of the Wisconsin Constitution.” Koshick v. State, 2005 WI App 232, ¶6 , 287 Wis. 2d 608 , 706 N.W.2d 174 . 2023See Evers v. Sullivan, 2000 WI App 144, ¶5 , 237 Wis. 2d 759 , 615 N.W.2d 680 . ¶7 “Sovereign immunity derives from article IV, section 27 of the Wisconsin Constitution.” Koshick v. State, 2005 WI App 232, ¶6 , 287 Wis. 2d 608 , 706 N.W.2d 174 . | 1 | 1 |
Evers v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2023See Evers v. Sullivan, 2000 WI App 144, ¶5 , 237 Wis. 2d 759 , 615 N.W.2d 680 . ¶7 “Sovereign immunity derives from article IV, section 27 of the Wisconsin Constitution.” Koshick v. State, 2005 WI App 232, ¶6 , 287 Wis. 2d 608 , 706 N.W.2d 174 . 2023See Evers v. Sullivan, 2000 WI App 144, ¶5 , 237 Wis. 2d 759 , 615 N.W.2d 680 . ¶7 “Sovereign immunity derives from article IV, section 27 of the Wisconsin Constitution.” Koshick v. State, 2005 WI App 232, ¶6 , 287 Wis. 2d 608 , 706 N.W.2d 174 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Heyergreen2 sentences2020See State v. Heyer, 174 Wis. 2d 164, 170 , 496 N.W.2d 779 (Ct. App. 1993) (an appellate court should dispose of an appeal on narrowest possible ground). 2 Karen initialed the note. 2 No. 2018AP1929 Instrument” recorded in June 2017, the mortgage’s reference to the January 24 note was corrected to identify the February 5 note. ¶4 The Zahrans claimed that the bank refused to convert the loan to a fixed rate, as promised; the parties had various disputes over the accounting of funds purportedly paid by the Zahrans; the parties entered into a loan modification agreement; and the bank reneged befor 2020See State v. Heyer, 174 Wis. 2d 164, 170 , 496 N.W.2d 779 (Ct. App. 1993) (an appellate court should dispose of an appeal on narrowest possible ground). 2 Karen initialed the note. 2 No. 2018AP1929 Instrument” recorded in June 2017, the mortgage’s reference to the January 24 note was corrected to identify the February 5 note. ¶4 The Zahrans claimed that the bank refused to convert the loan to a fixed rate, as promised; the parties had various disputes over the accounting of funds purportedly paid by the Zahrans; the parties entered into a loan modification agreement; and the bank reneged befor | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2018See Turner v. Taylor , 2003 WI App 256 , ¶ 1 n.1, 268 Wis. 2d 628 , 673 N.W.2d 716 (court of appeals need not address all issues raised by the parties if one is dispositive). 2018See Turner v. Taylor , 2003 WI App 256 , ¶ 1 n.1, 268 Wis. 2d 628 , 673 N.W.2d 716 (court of appeals need not address all issues raised by the parties if one is dispositive). | 1 | 1 |
Haskell v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (In Re Genesis Health Ventures, Inc.)green2 sentences2017One court explained why: "Because a 'bankruptcy case' is fundamentally different from the typical civil action, however, comparison of a bankruptcy proceeding with another proceeding is not susceptible to the standard [claim preclusion] analysis." Rather, a court must "scrutinize the totality of the circumstances in each action and then determine whether the primary test of . . . essential similarity in the underlying events[] has been satisfied." Also, the court must "properly tailor[]" the claim preclusion doctrine to the "unique circumstances that arise when the previous litigation took pla 2017One court explained why: "Because a 'bankruptcy case' is fundamentally different from the typical civil action, however, comparison of a bankruptcy proceeding with another proceeding is not susceptible to the standard [claim preclusion] analysis." Rather, a court must "scrutinize the totality of the circumstances in each action and then determine whether the primary test of. . . essential similarity in the underlying events!] has been satisfied." Also, the court must "properly tailor []" the claim preclusion doctrine to the "unique circumstances that arise when the previous litigation took pla | 1 | 1 |
Tana J. Waid v. Merrill Area Public Schools, Dr. Strand Wedul and James Boettchergreen1 sentence2008See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Kruckenberg v. Harveygreen | 1 | 1 |
Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitiegreen1 sentence2005Such a scheme enables a person to rely on prior adjudication, while ensuring even-handed treatment by the doctrine." Casad & Clermont, supra note 14, at 33. 46 Vestal, Res Judicata/Preclusion V-8-9 (1969). 47 Federated Dep't Store v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 401 (1981) (citation omitted). 48 18 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 4415, at 380 (2002). 49 18 Wright et al., supra note 48, § 4415 at 364 ("But for the most part, it is better to avoid weakening claim preclusion out of sympathy for the plight of particular plaintiffs and lack of sympathy for par | 1 | 1 |
| Sandin v. Connergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Charles PURTER, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary Dept. of Health and Human Servicesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
green
2 sentences2018Claim Preclusion ¶13 The doctrine of claim preclusion "provides that a final judgment on the merits bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions or occurrences." Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. , 230 Wis. 2d 212 , 233, 601 N.W.2d 627 (1999). 2018Claim Preclusion ¶13 The doctrine of claim preclusion "provides that a final judgment on the merits bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions or occurrences." Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. , 230 Wis. 2d 212 , 233, 601 N.W.2d 627 (1999). | 3 | 2001–2018 |
DePratt v. West Bend Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2018Co. , 113 Wis. 2d 306 , 310, 334 N.W.2d 883 (1983) ). *369 III ¶ 29 We address whether the doctrine of claim preclusion applies to the undisputed facts in the instant action. ¶ 30 Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, "a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions *619 between the same parties [or their privies] as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings." N. States Power Co. , 189 Wis. 2d at 550 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (brackets in original); Lindas v. Cady , 183 Wis. 2d 547 , 558, 515 N.W.2d 458 (1994) ; DePratt , 113 Wis. 2d at 2018Co. , 113 Wis. 2d 306 , 310, 334 N.W.2d 883 (1983) ). *369 III ¶ 29 We address whether the doctrine of claim preclusion applies to the undisputed facts in the instant action. ¶ 30 Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, "a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions *619 between the same parties [or their privies] as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings." N. States Power Co. , 189 Wis. 2d at 550 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (brackets in original); Lindas v. Cady , 183 Wis. 2d 547 , 558, 515 N.W.2d 458 (1994) ; DePratt , 113 Wis. 2d at | 3 | 2002–2018 |
National Operating, L.P. v. Mutual Life Insurance
green
2 sentences2024As noted, there is an identity of claims between two actions if the second action “was litigated or could have been litigated in the first action.” National Operating, 244 Wis. 2d 839, ¶67 . 2024As noted, there is an identity of claims between two actions if the second action “was litigated or could have been litigated in the first action.” National Operating, 244 Wis. 2d 839, ¶67 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thomas P. Wuensch
green
2 sentences2018Accordingly, we conclude that the instant lawsuit alleging a default as of September 2012 is not barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. *626 IV ¶ 51 Before we end this opinion, we briefly address the following two additional issues the parties raised: (1) whether the circuit court erred at trial by admitting a copy of the note into evidence; and (2) whether Federal National proved that it had possession of the original wet-ink note. ¶ 52 These two issues are presented in and are governed by our decision in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Wuensch , 2018 WI 35 , 380 Wis. 2d 727 , 911 N. 2018Accordingly, we conclude that the instant lawsuit alleging a default as of September 2012 is not barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. *626 IV ¶ 51 Before we end this opinion, we briefly address the following two additional issues the parties raised: (1) whether the circuit court erred at trial by admitting a copy of the note into evidence; and (2) whether Federal National proved that it had possession of the original wet-ink note. ¶ 52 These two issues are presented in and are governed by our decision in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Wuensch , 2018 WI 35 , 380 Wis. 2d 727 , 911 N. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Soto
green
2 sentences2013See N. States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 551 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995) (describing the elements of claim preclusion as: "(1) an identity between the parties or their privies in the prior and present suits; (2) an identity between the causes of action in the two suits; and (3) a final judgment on the merits in a court of competent jurisdiction."). 3 No. 2011AP788.mjg ¶36, 343 Wis. 2d 43 , 817 N.W.2d 848 . 2013See N. States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 551 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995) (describing the elements of claim preclusion as: "(1) an identity between the parties or their privies in the prior and present suits; (2) an identity between the causes of action in the two suits; and (3) a final judgment on the merits in a court of competent jurisdiction."). 3 No. 2011AP788.mjg ¶36, 343 Wis. 2d 43 , 817 N.W.2d 848 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Chad M. G. v. Kenneth J. Z.
green
2 sentences1996On May 22, 1995, the Court of Appeals for the State of Wisconsin decided Chad M.G. v. Kenneth J.A., 194 Wis. 2d 690 , 535 N.W.2d 97 (Ct. App. 1995), holding that a mother and a child do not stand in privity with one another for the purposes of a paternity action; and therefore, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not bar a subsequent action brought by a child who was not a party to the first proceeding. 1996Id. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
John Teske v. Wilson Mutual Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2025Co., 2019 WI 62, ¶24 , 387 Wis. 2d 213 , 928 N.W.2d 555 (citations omitted). ¶11 In Wisconsin, three elements establish the applicability of the doctrine of claim preclusion: “(1) an identity between the parties or their privies in the prior and present lawsuits; (2) an identity of the causes of action in the two lawsuits; and (3) a final judgment on the merits in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Id., ¶25. 2025Co., 2019 WI 62, ¶24 , 387 Wis. 2d 213 , 928 N.W.2d 555 (citations omitted). ¶11 In Wisconsin, three elements establish the applicability of the doctrine of claim preclusion: “(1) an identity between the parties or their privies in the prior and present lawsuits; (2) an identity of the causes of action in the two lawsuits; and (3) a final judgment on the merits in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Id., ¶25. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
DSG Evergreen Family Limited Partnership v. Town of Perry
neutral
1 sentence2025P’ship v. Town of Perry, 2020 WI 23 , ¶18, 390 Wis. 2d 533 , 939 N.W.2d 564 (“The rule applies 4 Although the circuit court considered Goeben’s inverse condemnation claim separately from his other claims in this case, we conclude that the inverse condemnation claim is also barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Kelly James Kloss
neutral
1 sentence2025P’ship v. Town of Perry, 2020 WI 23 , ¶18, 390 Wis. 2d 533 , 939 N.W.2d 564 (“The rule applies 4 Although the circuit court considered Goeben’s inverse condemnation claim separately from his other claims in this case, we conclude that the inverse condemnation claim is also barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Wisconsin v. Parrish
green
2 sentences2020State v. Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, ¶14 , 258 Wis. 2d 521 , 654 N.W.2d 273 . 2020State v. Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, ¶14 , 258 Wis. 2d 521 , 654 N.W.2d 273 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Christopher T. Beidel v. Sideline Software, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in the Employment Contract ¶37 Finally, Towle contends that Kerr breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in his employment contract in a variety of ways. ¶38 "Every contract implies good faith and fair dealing between the parties to it, and a duty of cooperation on the part of both parties." Beidel v. Sideline Software, Inc. , 2013 WI 56 , ¶27, 348 Wis. 2d 360 , 842 N.W.2d 240 (citation omitted). 2019Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in the Employment Contract ¶37 Finally, Towle contends that Kerr breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in his employment contract in a variety of ways. ¶38 "Every contract implies good faith and fair dealing between the parties to it, and a duty of cooperation on the part of both parties." Beidel v. Sideline Software, Inc. , 2013 WI 56 , ¶27, 348 Wis. 2d 360 , 842 N.W.2d 240 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Stoehr
green
2 sentences2018VII, § 3 (3); Wis. Stat. §§ 808.05 (2), 809.61 ; State v. Stoehr , 134 Wis. 2d 66 , 70, 396 N.W.2d 177 (1986). 5 For further discussion of the public policies underlying the doctrine of claim preclusion, see Kruckenberg v. Harvey , 2005 WI 43 , ¶¶ 19-22, 279 Wis. 2d 520 , 694 N.W.2d 879 , and accompanying footnotes. 6 The operative allegations in the instant case are in the amended complaint filed by Bank of America on August 14, 2015. 7 The certification memorandum filed by the court of appeals explains that state courts have taken varied approaches to the question of the application of the d 2018VII, § 3 (3); Wis. Stat. §§ 808.05 (2), 809.61 ; State v. Stoehr , 134 Wis. 2d 66 , 70, 396 N.W.2d 177 (1986). 5 For further discussion of the public policies underlying the doctrine of claim preclusion, see Kruckenberg v. Harvey , 2005 WI 43 , ¶¶ 19-22, 279 Wis. 2d 520 , 694 N.W.2d 879 , and accompanying footnotes. 6 The operative allegations in the instant case are in the amended complaint filed by Bank of America on August 14, 2015. 7 The certification memorandum filed by the court of appeals explains that state courts have taken varied approaches to the question of the application of the d | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kowske v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.
green
2 sentences2009The City's argument is claim, preclusion. " 'Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties [or their privies] as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings.'" Kowske v. Ameriquest Mortgage, 2009 WI App 45, ¶ 19 , 317 Wis. 2d 500 , 767 N.W.2d 309 (quoting Menard, Inc. v. Liteway Lighting Prods., 2005 WI 98, ¶ 26 , 282 Wis. 2d 582 , 698 N.W.2d 738 ) (alterations in Kowske). 2009The City's argument is claim, preclusion. " 'Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties [or their privies] as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings.'" Kowske v. Ameriquest Mortgage, 2009 WI App 45, ¶ 19 , 317 Wis. 2d 500 , 767 N.W.2d 309 (quoting Menard, Inc. v. Liteway Lighting Prods., 2005 WI 98, ¶ 26 , 282 Wis. 2d 582 , 698 N.W.2d 738 ) (alterations in Kowske). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Parks v. City of Madison
green
2 sentences2008In Parks v. City of Madison, 171 Wis. 2d 730, 738 , 492 N.W.2d 365 (Ct. App. 1992), we recognized an exception to the doctrine of claim preclusion. 2008In Parks v. City of Madison, 171 Wis. 2d 730, 738 , 492 N.W.2d 365 (Ct. App. 1992), we recognized an exception to the doctrine of claim preclusion. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hernke v. Coronet Insurance
neutral
2 sentences2005Co., 72 Wis. 2d 170, 178 , 240 N.W.2d 382 (1976) (citing McCourt: "Fairness is one aspect of the application of res judicata."). *543 These cases should not be read to graft a "fundamental fairness" element onto the doctrine of claim preclusion. 45 "Fairness further argues for the predictable and consistent application of relatively wooden preclusion rules without overly sizable or flexible exceptions. 2005Co., 72 Wis. 2d 170, 178 , 240 N.W.2d 382 (1976) (citing McCourt: "Fairness is one aspect of the application of res judicata."). *543 These cases should not be read to graft a "fundamental fairness" element onto the doctrine of claim preclusion. 45 "Fairness further argues for the predictable and consistent application of relatively wooden preclusion rules without overly sizable or flexible exceptions. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Pasko v. City of Milwaukee
green
2 sentences2005For example, in Pasko v. City of Milwaukee, 2002 WI 33, ¶ 22 , 252 Wis. 2d 1 , 643 N.W.2d 72 , the court was faced with whether police officers and the Milwaukee Police Association were in privity, the officers having brought the first suit, the union the second. 2005For example, in Pasko v. City of Milwaukee, 2002 WI 33, ¶ 22 , 252 Wis. 2d 1 , 643 N.W.2d 72 , the court was faced with whether police officers and the Milwaukee Police Association were in privity, the officers having brought the first suit, the union the second. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Desotelle v. Continental Casualty Co. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Pasko v. City of Milwaukee green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Glover v. Marine Bank of Beaver Dam green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Production Credit Ass'n of Madison v. Laufenberg green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Amber J.F. v. Richard B. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.