7 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2007 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Bakergreen1 sentence1999In Cates , the court held that evidence that gratuitous public benefits served, and will serve, to mitigate medical malpractice plaintiffs damages violates the collateral source rule because it may affect the jury's consideration of liability issues; see also Johnson v. Baker, 719 P.2d 752 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Sampson v. Loguegreen2 sentences1997Later, in Sampson v. Logue, 184 Wis. 2d 20, 28 , 515 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Ct. App. 1994), this court again stated that under § 803.03(2)(a), Stats., a subrogated party should be joined as a plaintiff. 1997Later, in Sampson v. Logue, 184 Wis. 2d 20, 28 , 515 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Ct. App. 1994), this court again stated that under § 803.03(2)(a), Stats., a subrogated party should be joined as a plaintiff. | 1 | 1 |
Garrity v. Rural Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences1994Co., 77 Wis. 2d 537, 541 , 253 N.W.2d 512, 514 (1977) (party with a subrogated claim has an independent, albeit derivative, claim). 1994Co., 77 Wis. 2d 537, 541 , 253 N.W.2d 512, 514 (1977) (party with a subrogated claim has an independent, albeit derivative, claim). | 1 | 1 |
Bruner v. Kopsgreen2 sentences1991An earlier decision by this court, Bruner v. Kops, 105 Wis. 2d 614, 624-25 , 314 N.W.2d 892, 897 (Ct. App. 1981), held that a plaintiff tolls the statute of limitations with respect to a subrogated claim under sec. 803.03(2)(a), Stats., by filing his or her principal claim in the action. 3 Because the issue decided in Bruner was not *401 before the court in Lambert, Lambert does not overrule Bruner . 1991An earlier decision by this court, Bruner v. Kops, 105 Wis. 2d 614, 624-25 , 314 N.W.2d 892, 897 (Ct. App. 1981), held that a plaintiff tolls the statute of limitations with respect to a subrogated claim under sec. 803.03(2)(a), Stats., by filing his or her principal claim in the action. 3 Because the issue decided in Bruner was not *401 before the court in Lambert, Lambert does not overrule Bruner . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Heifetz v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1992American and Foreign claims that the trial court erred by finding that the $50,000 payment created a subrogated claim in favor of American and Foreign that must be asserted or it is lost under Heifetz v. Johnson, 61 Wis. 2d 111 , 211 N.W.2d 834 (1973). 1992American and Foreign claims that the trial court erred by finding that the $50,000 payment created a subrogated claim in favor of American and Foreign that must be asserted or it is lost under Heifetz v. Johnson, 61 Wis. 2d 111 , 211 N.W.2d 834 (1973). | 2 | 1987–1992 |
Scandrett v. Greenhouse
neutral
2 sentences2007Id. at 110 . 2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Thoreson v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.
green
2 sentences1999In Thoreson, 56 Wis. 2d at 243 , 201 N.W.2d at 752 , the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared: The general rule in Wisconsin has been that a plaintiff who has been injured by the tortious conduct of another is entitled to recover the reasonable value of his medical costs reasonably required by the injury. 1999In Thoreson, 56 Wis. 2d at 243 , 201 N.W.2d at 752 , the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared: The general rule in Wisconsin has been that a plaintiff who has been injured by the tortious conduct of another is entitled to recover the reasonable value of his medical costs reasonably required by the injury. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Anderson v. Garber
green
2 sentences1997In Anderson , we concluded that "[t]he statutory scheme clearly contemplates joining a plaintiffs insurer that has a subrogated claim for medical expenses as party plaintiff." Id. at 399 , 466 N.W.2d at 225 . 1997In Anderson , we concluded that "[t]he statutory scheme clearly contemplates joining a plaintiffs insurer that has a subrogated claim for medical expenses as party plaintiff." Id. at 399 , 466 N.W.2d at 225 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Radloff v. General Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence1991Id. at 16 , 432 N.W.2d at 598 . 3 While we agree that the statute of limitations does not bar joinder of a subrogated claim, we note that filing the principal claim does not "toll" the statute to allow an independent claim by *401 the insurer. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hansen v. AH Robins, Inc.
green
1 sentence1991Id. at 16 , 432 N.W.2d at 598 . 3 While we agree that the statute of limitations does not bar joinder of a subrogated claim, we note that filing the principal claim does not "toll" the statute to allow an independent claim by *401 the insurer. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Lambert v. Wrensch
green
2 sentences1987In Lambert v. Wrensch, 135 Wis. 2d 105 , 399 N.W.2d 369 (1987), this court reaffirmed another of Heifetz’s holdings, namely that when the statute of limitations barred the insurance company subrogee from asserting the amount owed it, the insured could recover only his share of the total amount the tortfeasor owed; the insured could not recover the insurance company’s subrogated claim from the tortfeasor. 1987In Lambert v. Wrensch, 135 Wis. 2d 105 , 399 N.W.2d 369 (1987), this court reaffirmed another of Heifetz’s holdings, namely that when the statute of limitations barred the insurance company subrogee from asserting the amount owed it, the insured could recover only his share of the total amount the tortfeasor owed; the insured could not recover the insurance company’s subrogated claim from the tortfeasor. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.