48 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 34 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marathon County v. D. K.green2 sentences2022This court may elect to address a moot issue if: (1) the issue is of great public importance; (2) the constitutionality of a statute is involved; (3) the issue arises often, making a definitive decision necessary to guide circuit courts; (4) the issue is likely to arise again and needs to be resolved to avoid uncertainty; or (5) the issue is “likely of repetition and evades review.” See Marathon Cnty. v. D.K., 2020 WI 8, ¶19 , 390 Wis. 2d 50 , 937 N.W.2d 901 . ¶9 We agree with both parties that the proper form of the special verdict question fits into several established exceptions to the moot 2022This court may elect to address a moot issue if: (1) the issue is of great public importance; (2) the constitutionality of a statute is involved; (3) the issue arises often, making a definitive decision necessary to guide circuit courts; (4) the issue is likely to arise again and needs to be resolved to avoid uncertainty; or (5) the issue is “likely of repetition and evades review.” See Marathon Cnty. v. D.K., 2020 WI 8, ¶19 , 390 Wis. 2d 50 , 937 N.W.2d 901 . ¶9 We agree with both parties that the proper form of the special verdict question fits into several established exceptions to the moot | 6 | 17 |
Portage Cnty. v. J.W.K. (In Re Mental Commitment of J.W.K.)green2 sentences2024See Marinette County v. A.M.N., No. 2022AP1395, unpublished slip op. ¶24 (WI App Aug. 29, 2023), review denied (WI Jan. 23, 2024).7 However, we conclude that Kyle’s case falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine. ¶12 This court may decide to “address moot issues in ‘exceptional or compelling circumstances,’” which include that “the issue is ‘capable and likely of repetition and yet evades review.’” J.W.K., 386 Wis. 2d 672, ¶12 (citations omitted). 2024Mootness exception ¶15 Although courts generally do not address issues that are moot, there are a number of recognized exceptions wherein a court may nevertheless choose to do so: (1) where “the issues are of great public importance;” (2) when “the constitutionality of a statute is involved;” (3) when “the situation arises so often ‘a definitive decision is essential to guide the trial courts;’” (4) where “the issue is likely to arise again and should be resolved by the court to avoid uncertainty;” and (5) where “the issue is ‘capable and likely of repetition and yet evades review.’” J.W.K., 3 | 5 | 12 |
Sauk County v. S. A. M.green2 sentences2024This court looks askance at this last collateral consequence as a whole; even our supreme court in S.A.M. refrained from addressing the “stigma argument.” See S.A.M., 402 Wis. 2d 379 , ¶27 n.5; see also id., ¶51 (Ziegler, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“[N]o Wisconsin court has ever concluded that social stigma alone is a collateral consequence of commitment that will defeat the mootness doctrine.”). ¶14 Finally, Carly asserts that even if the underlying appeal with respect to her commitment order is found to be moot (because it expired on August 7, 2023), her involuntary me 2023Perhaps for good reason, since “no Wisconsin court has ever concluded that social stigma alone is a collateral consequence of commitment that will defeat the mootness doctrine.” S.A.M., 402 Wis. 2d 379, ¶51 (Ziegler, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). ¶16 As Chief Justice Ziegler presaged in her concurrence/dissent, “[w]ith no moot appeals in these [commitment] cases, the appellate system will be flooded.” Id., ¶38. | 2 | 4 |
Prn Associates LLC v. State of Wisconsin Department of Administrationgreen2 sentences2024LLC v. DOA, 2009 WI 53, ¶25 , 317 Wis. 2d 656 , 766 N.W.2d 559 . “[T]he party who alleges that a controversy before us has become moot has the ‘heavy burden’ of establishing that we lack jurisdiction.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 , 1042 n.8 (1983). ¶45 In support of its mootness argument, the DNR contends that it has since invalidated the interim decision and that the interim decision is therefore “no 24 No. 2022AP718 longer the operative guidance regarding COCs for properties with potential PFAS contamination.” However, despite this assertion, it is not definitively clear from the Record 2024LLC v. DOA, 2009 WI 53, ¶25 , 317 Wis. 2d 656 , 766 N.W.2d 559 . “[T]he party who alleges that a controversy before us has become moot has the ‘heavy burden’ of establishing that we lack jurisdiction.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 , 1042 n.8 (1983). ¶45 In support of its mootness argument, the DNR contends that it has since invalidated the interim decision and that the interim decision is therefore “no 24 No. 2022AP718 longer the operative guidance regarding COCs for properties with potential PFAS contamination.” However, despite this assertion, it is not definitively clear from the Record | 2 | 4 |
State v. Leitnergreen2 sentences2024Mootness ¶25 The State first argues that the case is moot because the involuntary medication order has expired, and because “[t]he record does not show that [Jared] ever received medication involuntarily, pursuant to the April 24 order.” Jared argues that the case is not moot because he did receive treatment after the circuit court entered the involuntary medication order but before the order was stayed, 9 No. 2023AP715-CR and he is liable for the cost of that treatment.5 Jared also argues that, if the case is moot, we should decline to dismiss the case because the issues raised herein qualify 2024Mootness ¶25 The State first argues that the case is moot because the involuntary medication order has expired, and because “[t]he record does not show that [Jared] ever received medication involuntarily, pursuant to the April 24 order.” Jared argues that the case is not moot because he did receive treatment after the circuit court entered the involuntary medication order but before the order was stayed, 9 No. 2023AP715-CR and he is liable for the cost of that treatment.5 Jared also argues that, if the case is moot, we should decline to dismiss the case because the issues raised herein qualify | 2 | 3 |
State v. Raytrell K. Fitzgeraldgreen2 sentences2024STAT. § 971.14(3)(dm) and (4)(b), and that the circuit court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. ¶3 We conclude that even if the case is moot, an exception to the mootness doctrine applies because it raises significant constitutional issues that are “capable and likely of repetition and yet evade[] review[.]” State v. Fitzgerald, 2019 WI 69, ¶22 , 387 Wis. 2d 384 , 929 N.W.2d 165 (citation omitted). 2024STAT. § 971.14(3)(dm) and (4)(b), and that the circuit court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. ¶3 We conclude that even if the case is moot, an exception to the mootness doctrine applies because it raises significant constitutional issues that are “capable and likely of repetition and yet evade[] review[.]” State v. Fitzgerald, 2019 WI 69, ¶22 , 387 Wis. 2d 384 , 929 N.W.2d 165 (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Waukesha Cnty. v. S.L.L. (In Re Mental Commitment of S.L.L.)green2 sentences2021See Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 2019 WI 66, ¶41 , 387 Wis. 2d 333 , 929 N.W.2d 140 (declining to address sufficiency challenge to involuntary commitment due to mootness). 9 No. 2021AP678 Mootness Exceptions ¶16 A court reviewing an expired medication order may address moot issues under certain circumstances. 2021See Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 2019 WI 66, ¶41 , 387 Wis. 2d 333 , 929 N.W.2d 140 (declining to address sufficiency challenge to involuntary commitment due to mootness). 9 No. 2021AP678 Mootness Exceptions ¶16 A court reviewing an expired medication order may address moot issues under certain circumstances. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Alexandergreen2 sentences2024See State v. Alexander, 2005 WI App 231, ¶15 , 287 Wis. 2d 645 , 706 N.W.2d 191 (“Arguments not refuted are deemed admitted.”); Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Secs. 2024See State v. Alexander, 2005 WI App 231, ¶15 , 287 Wis. 2d 645 , 706 N.W.2d 191 (“Arguments not refuted are deemed admitted.”); Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Secs. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. La Crosse Tribune v. Circuit Court for La Crosse Countygreen1 sentence2022See La Crosse Tribune, 115 Wis. 2d at 229 . | 1 | 1 |
Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School Districtgreen1 sentence2021See Schill, 327 Wis. 2d 572 , ¶45 & n.21. ¶41 Even if I were to consider the merits, however, Lyubchenko’s arguments would be unavailing because he has failed to show that the circuit court’s resolution of the contempt issue would have “no practical effect,” as required for application of the mootness doctrine, see PRN Assocs., 317 Wis. 2d 656, ¶25 , or that the contempt was not continuing under Christensen and Frisch. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Hospitalization of Naomi B.green1 sentence2021Under this law, in P.P.’s words, “appeals of civil commitments will always satisfy the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.” See Matter of Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918, 924 (Alaska 2019). | 1 | 1 |
Tooley v. O'CONNELLgreen2 sentences2021See Marathon County v. D.K., 2020 WI 8, ¶19 , 390 Wis. 2d 50 , 937 N.W.2d 901 (listing the five mootness doctrine exceptions). 4The second and fourth conditions——adversity and ripeness—— are not challenged by the Governor and are clearly satisfied here. 5 No. 2020AP1718-OA future rights." Tooley v. O'Connell, 77 Wis. 2d 422, 434 , 253 N.W.2d 335 (1977). 2021See Marathon County v. D.K., 2020 WI 8, ¶19 , 390 Wis. 2d 50 , 937 N.W.2d 901 (listing the five mootness doctrine exceptions). 4The second and fourth conditions——adversity and ripeness—— are not challenged by the Governor and are clearly satisfied here. 5 No. 2020AP1718-OA future rights." Tooley v. O'Connell, 77 Wis. 2d 422, 434 , 253 N.W.2d 335 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Outagamie County v. Melanie L.
green
2 sentences2021STAT. ch. 51 orders “will, more likely than not, evade review.” See Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, ¶80 , 349 Wis. 2d 148 , 833 N.W.2d 607 (issue regarding involuntary medication or treatment statute “likely to evade appellate review in many instances because the order appealed from will have expired before an appeal is completed”). 12 No. 2021AP678 CONCLUSION ¶21 For all of these reasons, I conclude that the only issue raised in this appeal is moot and that no exception to the doctrine of mootness applies. 2021STAT. ch. 51 orders “will, more likely than not, evade review.” See Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, ¶80 , 349 Wis. 2d 148 , 833 N.W.2d 607 (issue regarding involuntary medication or treatment statute “likely to evade appellate review in many instances because the order appealed from will have expired before an appeal is completed”). 12 No. 2021AP678 CONCLUSION ¶21 For all of these reasons, I conclude that the only issue raised in this appeal is moot and that no exception to the doctrine of mootness applies. | 3 | 2021–2026 |
Winnebago County v. C.S.
green
2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. Fitzgerald, 2019 WI 69, ¶¶21–22, 387 Wis. 2d 384, 929 N.W.2d 165; Winnebago Cnty. v. C.S., 2020 WI 33, ¶11 n.5, 391 Wis. 2d 35, 940 N.W.2d 875. 2026See, e.g., State v. Fitzgerald, 2019 WI 69, ¶¶21–22, 387 Wis. 2d 384, 929 N.W.2d 165; Winnebago Cnty. v. C.S., 2020 WI 33, ¶11 n.5, 391 Wis. 2d 35, 940 N.W.2d 875. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Michigan v. Long
green
1 sentence2024LLC v. DOA, 2009 WI 53, ¶25 , 317 Wis. 2d 656 , 766 N.W.2d 559 . “[T]he party who alleges that a controversy before us has become moot has the ‘heavy burden’ of establishing that we lack jurisdiction.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 , 1042 n.8 (1983). ¶45 In support of its mootness argument, the DNR contends that it has since invalidated the interim decision and that the interim decision is therefore “no 24 No. 2022AP718 longer the operative guidance regarding COCs for properties with potential PFAS contamination.” However, despite this assertion, it is not definitively clear from the Record | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha
green
1 sentence2023Third, the majority opinion errs in concluding that exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply in these circumstances. 1 I use the same designation for the plaintiffs-respondents as does the majority opinion. 2 I use the same designation for the defendants-appellants as does the majority opinion. 3 I refer to the test our supreme court set out at, among other places, Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha, 2022 WI 57, ¶3 , 403 Wis. 2d 1 , 976 N.W.2d 263 , regarding an award of attorney fees pursuant to WIS. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. JEREMIAH C.
green
2 sentences2023Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, ¶¶3-4 , 233 Wis. 2d 685 , 608 N.W.2d 425 (determining that exceptions to mootness warrant addressing issue on appeal); State v. Jeremiah C., 2003 WI App 40, ¶10 , 260 Wis. 2d 359 , 659 N.W.2d 193 (same). 2023Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, ¶¶3-4 , 233 Wis. 2d 685 , 608 N.W.2d 425 (determining that exceptions to mootness warrant addressing issue on appeal); State v. Jeremiah C., 2003 WI App 40, ¶10 , 260 Wis. 2d 359 , 659 N.W.2d 193 (same). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State Ex Rel. Olson v. Litscher
green
2 sentences2023Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, ¶¶3-4 , 233 Wis. 2d 685 , 608 N.W.2d 425 (determining that exceptions to mootness warrant addressing issue on appeal); State v. Jeremiah C., 2003 WI App 40, ¶10 , 260 Wis. 2d 359 , 659 N.W.2d 193 (same). 2023Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, ¶¶3-4 , 233 Wis. 2d 685 , 608 N.W.2d 425 (determining that exceptions to mootness warrant addressing issue on appeal); State v. Jeremiah C., 2003 WI App 40, ¶10 , 260 Wis. 2d 359 , 659 N.W.2d 193 (same). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
City of Racine v. J-T Enterprises of America, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Moot appeals are generally dismissed, but courts have discretion to decide them under “exceptional or compelling circumstances.” City of Racine v. J-T Enters. of Am., Inc., 64 Wis. 2d 691, 702 , 221 N.W.2d 869 (1974). ¶8 The parties ask us to consider the issue on appeal because it fits into multiple exceptions to the doctrine of mootness. 2022Moot appeals are generally dismissed, but courts have discretion to decide them under “exceptional or compelling circumstances.” City of Racine v. J-T Enters. of Am., Inc., 64 Wis. 2d 691, 702 , 221 N.W.2d 869 (1974). ¶8 The parties ask us to consider the issue on appeal because it fits into multiple exceptions to the doctrine of mootness. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Winnebago County v. Christopher S.
green
1 sentence2020I, 366 Wis. 2d 1, ¶32 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Racine Education Ass'n v. Board of Education
green
2 sentences2020Id. ¶23 We agreed that the case was moot insofar as it concerned the release of the requested records; we also held that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. 2020Id. at 323-25 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Schulpius
green
2 sentences2015Accordingly, under the rationale set forth in Anderson's brief. .., and the established exceptions to the mootness doctrine, see, e.g., In re Commitment of Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶ 15 , 287 Wis. 2d 44 , 707 N.W.2d 495 , the State agrees that this case is as appropriate a vehicle as any to review the question presented. 2015Accordingly, under the rationale set forth in Anderson's brief. .., and the established exceptions to the mootness doctrine, see, e.g., In re Commitment of Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶ 15 , 287 Wis. 2d 44 , 707 N.W.2d 495 , the State agrees that this case is as appropriate a vehicle as any to review the question presented. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Doering v. Swoboda
green
1 sentence2004We acknowledge that there are exceptions to the mootness doctrine including the situation where the constitutionality of a statute is involved, see Doering v. Swoboda, 214 Wis. 481 , 253 N.W 657 (1934); however, we decline to now address Knickmeier's challenges to this court's rule and authority in the context of this current disciplinary proceeding against Knickmeier. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State Ex Rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki
green
2 sentences2003In Kruzicki , this court held that exceptions to the mootness rule exist "when the issues presented are of great public importance, or the question is capable and likely of repetition and yet evades appellate review because the appellate process usually cannot be completed in time to have a practical effect on the parties." Id. (internal citations omitted). 2003In Kruzicki , this court held that exceptions to the mootness rule exist "when the issues presented are of great public importance, or the question is capable and likely of repetition and yet evades appellate review because the appellate process usually cannot be completed in time to have a practical effect on the parties." Id. (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Ervin v. City of Kenosha
green
2 sentences1993We accepted Badke's petition for review. [1] When reviewing a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we apply the standards set forth under sec. 802.08(2), Stats., which provides that the judgment sought shall be rendered only if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." In addition, "even if there are no disputed material facts, summary judgment is not appropriate if reasonab 1993We accepted Badke's petition for review. [1] When reviewing a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we apply the standards set forth under sec. 802.08(2), Stats., which provides that the judgment sought shall be rendered only if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." In addition, "even if there are no disputed material facts, summary judgment is not appropriate if reasonab | 1 | 1993–1993 |
In Matter of GS
green
2 sentences1986Here, the trial court decided that because neither Jones nor Galicia were currently under commitment orders, this case was analogous to In re G.S., Jr., 118 Wis. 2d 803 , 348 N.W.2d 181 (1984), and that the mootness rule applied. 1986Here, the trial court decided that because neither Jones nor Galicia were currently under commitment orders, this case was analogous to In re G.S., Jr., 118 Wis. 2d 803 , 348 N.W.2d 181 (1984), and that the mootness rule applied. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.