statutory notice claim in Wisconsin

2019Id. , ¶ 11. ¶30 The circuit court granted summary judgment to the County, dismissing E-Z Roll Off's complaint for failure to timely comply with the statutory notice of claim requirements.

2019Id. , ¶ 12.

2016The notice issue requires us to clarify whether Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28 , 233 Wis. 2d 344 , 607 N.W.2d 607 , created an unequivocal rule that the statutorily prescribed written notice must be given in the last order placing a child outside his or her home and whether six months must pass after that last order before filing a termination of parental rights ("TPR") petition. ¶2 We hold that the notice Juanita received satisfied the statutory notice requirement in a TPR action based on continuing CHIPS, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the remaining elements of con

2016The notice issue requires us to clarify whether Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28 , 233 Wis. 2d 344 , 607 N.W.2d 607 , created an unequivocal rule that the statutorily prescribed written notice must be given in the last order placing a child outside his or her home and whether six months must pass after that last order before filing a termination of parental rights ("TPR") petition. ¶2 We hold that the notice Juanita received satisfied the statutory notice requirement in a TPR action based on continuing CHIPS, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the remaining elements of con

2011See id. at 596 (noting that § 893.80(5) expressly states that specific rights and remedies provided by other statutes take precedence over the provisions of § 893.80 and concluding that § 893.80(1) does not apply to claimed violations of the open records law); see also Gillen v. City of Neenah, 219 Wis. 2d 806, 822-23 , 580 N.W.2d 628 (1998) (concluding that § 893.80(1) does not apply to actions under Wis. Stat. § 30.294 to enjoin violations of the public trust doctrine); Oak Creek, 304 Wis. 2d 702, ¶ 2 (concluding that § 893.80(1) does not apply to an action to compel a city to comply with th

2011See id. at 596 (noting that § 893.80(5) expressly states that specific rights and remedies provided by other statutes take precedence over the provisions of § 893.80 and concluding that § 893.80(1) does not apply to claimed violations of the open records law); see also Gillen v. City of Neenah, 219 Wis. 2d 806, 822-23 , 580 N.W.2d 628 (1998) (concluding that § 893.80(1) does not apply to actions under Wis. Stat. § 30.294 to enjoin violations of the public trust doctrine); Oak Creek, 304 Wis. 2d 702, ¶ 2 (concluding that § 893.80(1) does not apply to an action to compel a city to comply with th

2011See id. at 596 (noting that § 893.80(5) expressly states that specific rights and remedies provided by other statutes take precedence over the provisions of § 893.80 and concluding that § 893.80(1) does not apply to claimed violations of the open records law); see also Gillen v. City of Neenah, 219 Wis. 2d 806, 822-23 , 580 N.W.2d 628 (1998) (concluding that § 893.80(1) does not apply to actions under Wis. Stat. § 30.294 to enjoin violations of the public trust doctrine); Oak Creek, 304 Wis. 2d 702, ¶ 2 (concluding that § 893.80(1) does not apply to an action to compel a city to comply with th

2011See id. at 596 (noting that § 893.80(5) expressly states that specific rights and remedies provided by other statutes take precedence over the provisions of § 893.80 and concluding that § 893.80(1) does not apply to claimed violations of the open records law); see also Gillen v. City of Neenah, 219 Wis. 2d 806, 822-23 , 580 N.W.2d 628 (1998) (concluding that § 893.80(1) does not apply to actions under Wis. Stat. § 30.294 to enjoin violations of the public trust doctrine); Oak Creek, 304 Wis. 2d 702, ¶ 2 (concluding that § 893.80(1) does not apply to an action to compel a city to comply with th

1996Then, noting that the legislature subsequently amended the statute to delete the "founded on tort" language, the court concluded the "plain language" of the statute as it exists today "clearly does not limit the application of the notice of *350 claim requirements to tort claims." DNR, 184 Wis. 2d at 190 , 515 N.W.2d at 892 .

1996Then, noting that the legislature subsequently amended the statute to delete the "founded on tort" language, the court concluded the "plain language" of the statute as it exists today "clearly does not limit the application of the notice of *350 claim requirements to tort claims." DNR, 184 Wis. 2d at 190 , 515 N.W.2d at 892 .

1976Co. (1953), 264 Wis. 493, 563 , 59 N. W. *296 2d 425, irrespective of whether the common liability has been later extinguished as to one of the joint tort-feasors, such as by the failure to fulfill a statutory notice requirement, Ainsworth v. Berg (1948), 253 Wis. 488 , 34 N. W. 2d 790 , 35 N. W. 2d 911 .

1976Co. (1953), 264 Wis. 493, 563 , 59 N. W. *296 2d 425, irrespective of whether the common liability has been later extinguished as to one of the joint tort-feasors, such as by the failure to fulfill a statutory notice requirement, Ainsworth v. Berg (1948), 253 Wis. 488 , 34 N. W. 2d 790 , 35 N. W. 2d 911 .

1881It was said that the case was governed by the rules of law which govern the sale of lands by executors and administrators to pay the debts of the deceased, and that this court had repeatedly held that in such cases it is absolutely essential that the statutory notice for the hearing should be given, otherwise the whole proceedings are void. ‘ The case of Mohr v. Manierre, 101 U. S., 417 , was also an action brought by this respondent to recover another parcel of land sold by the same guardian at the same sale and under the same proceedings.