Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
A.B.C.G. Enterprises, Inc. v. First Bank Southeast, N.A.green2 sentences2021Enters. v. First Bank Se., N.A., 184 Wis. 2d 465, 476-77 , 515 N.W.2d 904 (1994). ¶9 In order for the common-law compulsory counterclaim rule to apply, the circuit court first must conclude that all of the elements of claim preclusion were present in the initial action. 2021Enters. v. First Bank Se., N.A., 184 Wis. 2d 465, 476-77 , 515 N.W.2d 904 (1994). ¶9 In order for the common-law compulsory counterclaim rule to apply, the circuit court first must conclude that all of the elements of claim preclusion were present in the initial action. | 1 | 5 |
Menard, Inc. v. Liteway Lighting Productsgreen2 sentences2021Menard, Inc., 282 Wis. 2d 582, ¶55 . 5 No. 2021AP54 The court concluded that Menard’s claims fell under the common-law compulsory counterclaim rule because the present suit “would impair Liteway’s rights as determined in the original action and would undermine the validity of the judgment Liteway obtained.” Id., ¶56. 2009"Whether claim preclusion and the common-law compulsory counterclaim rule apply to a given set of facts is a question of law that this court decides de novo." Menard, Inc. v. Liteway Lighting Prods., 2005 WI 98, ¶ 23 , 282 Wis. 2d 582 , 698 N.W.2d 738 . | 1 | 3 |
Manu-Tronics, Inc. v. Effective Management Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2007Enterprises, Inc. v. First Bank Southeast, N.A., 184 Wis.2d 465, 477 , 515 N.W.2d 904 (1994), we quoted from the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b) (1982) to explain the common-law compulsory counterclaim rule as follows: (2) A defendant who may interpose a claim as a counterclaim in an action but fails to do so is precluded, after the rendition of judgment in that action, from maintaining an action on the claim if: . . . (b) The relationship between the counterclaim and the plaintiff's claim is such that successful prosecution of the second action would nullify the initial judgment 2007Enterprises, Inc. v. First Bank Southeast, N.A., 184 Wis.2d 465, 477 , 515 N.W.2d 904 (1994), we quoted from the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b) (1982) to explain the common-law compulsory counterclaim rule as follows: (2) A defendant who may interpose a claim as a counterclaim in an action but fails to do so is precluded, after the rendition of judgment in that action, from maintaining an action on the claim if: . . . (b) The relationship between the counterclaim and the plaintiff's claim is such that successful prosecution of the second action would nullify the initial judgment | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wickenhauser v. Lehtinen
green
2 sentences2018When discussing the common-law compulsory counterclaim rule, our supreme court has explained that "[c]laim preclusion, standing alone , is not a bar to a subsequent suit by a defendant who chooses not to counterclaim in the first action ." Wickenhauser v. Lehtinen , 2007 WI 82 , ¶ 23, 302 Wis. 2d 41 , 734 N.W.2d 855 (first emphasis in Wickenhauser ; second emphasis added). 2018When discussing the common-law compulsory counterclaim rule, our supreme court has explained that "[c]laim preclusion, standing alone , is not a bar to a subsequent suit by a defendant who chooses not to counterclaim in the first action ." Wickenhauser v. Lehtinen , 2007 WI 82 , ¶ 23, 302 Wis. 2d 41 , 734 N.W.2d 855 (first emphasis in Wickenhauser ; second emphasis added). | 2 | 2012–2018 |
Barber v. Weber
green
2 sentences2009By the Court. — Judgment affirmed. 1 "In Wisconsin, the term 'claim preclusion' has replaced 'res judicata.'" Barber v. Weber, 2006 WI App 88 , ¶ 11 n.3, 292 Wis. 2d 426 , 715 N.W.2d 683 . 2009By the Court. — Judgment affirmed. 1 "In Wisconsin, the term 'claim preclusion' has replaced 'res judicata.'" Barber v. Weber, 2006 WI App 88 , ¶ 11 n.3, 292 Wis. 2d 426 , 715 N.W.2d 683 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Schwabe v. Chantilly, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Schwabe, 67 Wis.2d at 272-73 , 226 N.W.2d 452 . ¶ 38 The Wickenhausers' action is not barred by the common-law compulsory counterclaim rule because, as with Schwabe , this second action does not nullify the first judgment or impair any rights established in that action. 2007Schwabe, 67 Wis.2d at 272-73 , 226 N.W.2d 452 . ¶ 38 The Wickenhausers' action is not barred by the common-law compulsory counterclaim rule because, as with Schwabe , this second action does not nullify the first judgment or impair any rights established in that action. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Pasko v. City of Milwaukee
green
2 sentences2007However, we note that "[p]rivity exists when a person is so identified in interest with a party to former litigation that he or she represents precisely the same legal right in respect to the subject matter involved." Pasko v. City of Milwaukee, 2002 WI 33, ¶ 16 , 252 Wis.2d 1 , 643 N.W.2d 72 . [14] Even though Lehtinen acknowledges the findings in the first action, he argues in his brief that the fraud did not precede the contract in this case because the option was signed on January 14, 1998 and the Wickenhausers testified they did not discuss the option, nor had they seen it, prior to that 2007However, we note that "[p]rivity exists when a person is so identified in interest with a party to former litigation that he or she represents precisely the same legal right in respect to the subject matter involved." Pasko v. City of Milwaukee, 2002 WI 33, ¶ 16 , 252 Wis.2d 1 , 643 N.W.2d 72 . [14] Even though Lehtinen acknowledges the findings in the first action, he argues in his brief that the fraud did not precede the contract in this case because the option was signed on January 14, 1998 and the Wickenhausers testified they did not discuss the option, nor had they seen it, prior to that | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Northern States Power Co. v. Bugher
green
2 sentences2005N. States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 551 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995); A.B.C.G. 2005N. States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 551 , 525 N.W.2d 723 (1995); A.B.C.G. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
National Operating, L.P. v. Mutual Life Insurance
green
2 sentences2005Finally, Menard argues that this case should be governed by our decision in National Operating L.P. v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York, 2001 WI 87 , 244 Wis. 2d 839 , 630 N.W.2d 116 , rather than A.B.C.G. 2005Finally, Menard argues that this case should be governed by our decision in National Operating L.P. v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York, 2001 WI 87 , 244 Wis. 2d 839 , 630 N.W.2d 116 , rather than A.B.C.G. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Carey v. Neal, Cortina and Associates
green
2 sentences2005In Carey v. Neal, Cortina & Associates, 576 N.E.2d 220 (Ill. 2005In Carey v. Neal, Cortina & Associates, 576 N.E.2d 220 (Ill. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.