consider factors in Wisconsin

2025Therefore, it serves as additional support for the conclusion that a party must at least mention the delegation provision in its pleadings in order for a court to consider a challenge to the provision. 26 No. 2023AP1475 Rent-A-Center, it further explained that when a party specifically challenges a delegation provision, “a party may rely on the same arguments that it employs to contest the enforceability of other arbitration agreement provisions” but that such a challenge is insufficient when a party contests “the validity of an arbitration agreement as a whole, without specifically disputing

2025Id. at 227 .

2009Given the provision in § 973.20(1r) for converting any unpaid balance of restitution to a civil judgment, which we discuss at ¶¶ 47-48 below, we disagree that these factors constitute such a cap. [22] As noted above, the extension of Fernandez's probation by two years is not contested; it was stipulated to the circuit court that the requirement of a good faith effort had not been met, and therefore Huggett v. State, 83 Wis.2d 790 , 266 N.W.2d 403 (1978), does not apply to that determination.

2009Given the provision in § 973.20(1r) for converting any unpaid balance of restitution to a civil judgment, which we discuss at ¶¶ 47-48 below, we disagree that these factors constitute such a cap. [22] As noted above, the extension of Fernandez's probation by two years is not contested; it was stipulated to the circuit court that the requirement of a good faith effort had not been met, and therefore Huggett v. State, 83 Wis.2d 790 , 266 N.W.2d 403 (1978), does not apply to that determination.

2002We next address Channel 15's objection to the trial court's analysis of the operative facts in this case, which formed the basis for its conclusion that Channel 15 was not prejudiced. 13 The trial court relied on Carl v. Spickler Enterprises Ltd., 165 Wis. 2d 611, 623 , 478 N.W.2d 48 (Ct. App. 1991), for this formulation of prejudice: "whether the party opposing amendment has been given such notice of the operative facts which form the basis for the claim so as to enable him to prepare a defense or response." We agree with Channel 15 that when a trial court uses this formulation to determine i

2002We next address Channel 15's objection to the trial court's analysis of the operative facts in this case, which formed the basis for its conclusion that Channel 15 was not prejudiced. 13 The trial court relied on Carl v. Spickler Enterprises Ltd., 165 Wis. 2d 611, 623 , 478 N.W.2d 48 (Ct. App. 1991), for this formulation of prejudice: "whether the party opposing amendment has been given such notice of the operative facts which form the basis for the claim so as to enable him to prepare a defense or response." We agree with Channel 15 that when a trial court uses this formulation to determine i

1997The court of appeals reversed this part of the lower court order, Cameron v. Cameron, 197 Wis. 2d 618, 630 , 541 N.W.2d 164 (Ct. App. 1995), and Cameron does not raise it as an issue here. 9 767.25 Child support. (1) Whenever the court approves a stipulation for child support under s. 767.10, enters a judgment of annulment, divorce or legal separation, or enters an order or a judgment in sin action under s. 767.02(1)(f) or (j) or 767.08, the court shall do all of the following: (a) Order either or both parents to pay an amount reasonable or necessary to fulfill a duty to support a child.

1997The court of appeals reversed this part of the lower court order, Cameron v. Cameron, 197 Wis. 2d 618, 630 , 541 N.W.2d 164 (Ct. App. 1995), and Cameron does not raise it as an issue here. 9 767.25 Child support. (1) Whenever the court approves a stipulation for child support under s. 767.10, enters a judgment of annulment, divorce or legal separation, or enters an order or a judgment in sin action under s. 767.02(1)(f) or (j) or 767.08, the court shall do all of the following: (a) Order either or both parents to pay an amount reasonable or necessary to fulfill a duty to support a child.

1989See Boehringer, 7 Wis. 2d at 204 , 96 N.W.2d at 355 ; Harper, 14 Wis. 2d at 505 , 111 N.W.2d at 483-84 .

1989See Boehringer, 7 Wis. 2d at 204 , 96 N.W.2d at 355 ; Harper, 14 Wis. 2d at 505 , 111 N.W.2d at 483-84 .