7 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2021–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Caniglia v. Stromgreen2 sentences2024However, the Supreme Court recently held that, although it has recognized law enforcement community caretaking duties, it has not created "a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home." Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. 194, 196 (2021). 2024However, the Supreme Court recently held that, although it has recognized law enforcement community caretaking duties, it has not created "a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home." Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. 194, 196 (2021). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Pettitgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals need not address undeveloped arguments). 7 No. 2023AP1979 must allege facts showing “that the employer has a duty of care, that the employer breached that duty, that the act or omission of the employee was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injury, and that the act or omission of the employer was a cause-in-fact of the wrongful act of the employee.” Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 2005 WI 123, ¶43 , 284 Wis. 2d 307 , 700 N.W.2d 180 (citation omitted). ¶18 To state a claim for intentional infliction 2024See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals need not address undeveloped arguments). 7 No. 2023AP1979 must allege facts showing “that the employer has a duty of care, that the employer breached that duty, that the act or omission of the employee was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injury, and that the act or omission of the employer was a cause-in-fact of the wrongful act of the employee.” Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 2005 WI 123, ¶43 , 284 Wis. 2d 307 , 700 N.W.2d 180 (citation omitted). ¶18 To state a claim for intentional infliction | 1 | 1 |
Lake Havasu Estates, Inc. v. Reader's Digest Ass'ngreen1 sentence2024To be clear, it is not at all apparent that the complaint attempts to allege a standalone claim for negligence that is separate and distinct 19 WKOW cites Lake Havasu Estates, Inc. v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, Inc., 441 F. Supp. 489, 490 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), for the proposition that publishers have “no duty … to check to see whether other companies existed which bore the same name as the subject of its article.” WKOW’s citation to the Lake Havasu Estates case is inapt, not only because it addresses the common law negligence standards of a state other than Wisconsin without showing a tie to Wisconsin | 1 | 1 |
John Doe 67C v. Archdiocese of Milwaukeegreen2 sentences2024See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals need not address undeveloped arguments). 7 No. 2023AP1979 must allege facts showing “that the employer has a duty of care, that the employer breached that duty, that the act or omission of the employee was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injury, and that the act or omission of the employer was a cause-in-fact of the wrongful act of the employee.” Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 2005 WI 123, ¶43 , 284 Wis. 2d 307 , 700 N.W.2d 180 (citation omitted). ¶18 To state a claim for intentional infliction 2024See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals need not address undeveloped arguments). 7 No. 2023AP1979 must allege facts showing “that the employer has a duty of care, that the employer breached that duty, that the act or omission of the employee was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injury, and that the act or omission of the employer was a cause-in-fact of the wrongful act of the employee.” Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 2005 WI 123, ¶43 , 284 Wis. 2d 307 , 700 N.W.2d 180 (citation omitted). ¶18 To state a claim for intentional infliction | 1 | 1 |
Hansen v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc.green2 sentences2023See 9 No. 2022AP427 Hansen v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., 2013 WI App 2, ¶21 , 345 Wis. 2d 669 , 827 N.W.2d 99 (“Punitive damages are a remedy, not a cause of action.”). ¶23 Ninth and Tenth claims (Access and Kirsch): Negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation. 2023See 9 No. 2022AP427 Hansen v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., 2013 WI App 2, ¶21 , 345 Wis. 2d 669 , 827 N.W.2d 99 (“Punitive damages are a remedy, not a cause of action.”). ¶23 Ninth and Tenth claims (Access and Kirsch): Negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barry v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences2025Tauscher did not purport to set up a standalone test for determining whether an item is an improvement based on the ease with which its components could be altered or removed. 12 No. 2024AP543 conditions that are associated with the structure.”8 Barry, 245 Wis. 2d 560 , ¶21 & n.4. 2025A structural defect is “a hazardous condition inherent in the structure by reason of its design or construction.” See Barry, 245 Wis. 2d 560, ¶28 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Rabideau v. City of Racine
green
2 sentences2024See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals need not address undeveloped arguments). 7 No. 2023AP1979 must allege facts showing “that the employer has a duty of care, that the employer breached that duty, that the act or omission of the employee was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injury, and that the act or omission of the employer was a cause-in-fact of the wrongful act of the employee.” Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 2005 WI 123, ¶43 , 284 Wis. 2d 307 , 700 N.W.2d 180 (citation omitted). ¶18 To state a claim for intentional infliction 2024See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals need not address undeveloped arguments). 7 No. 2023AP1979 must allege facts showing “that the employer has a duty of care, that the employer breached that duty, that the act or omission of the employee was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injury, and that the act or omission of the employer was a cause-in-fact of the wrongful act of the employee.” Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 2005 WI 123, ¶43 , 284 Wis. 2d 307 , 700 N.W.2d 180 (citation omitted). ¶18 To state a claim for intentional infliction | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.