Wis. Stat. § 134.01
Injury to business; restraint of will
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
134.01134.01 Injury to business; restraint of will. Any 2 or more persons who shall combine, associate, agree, mutually undertake or concert together for the purpose of willfully or maliciously injuring another in his or her reputation, trade, business or profession by any means whatever, or for the purpose of maliciously compelling another to do or perform any act against his or her will, or preventing or hindering another from doing or performing any lawful act shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year or by fine not exceeding $500.
134.01 AnnotationA complaint alleging a conspiracy for the purpose of injuring another by means of perjury and resulting damage states a claim upon which relief can be granted. Radue v. Dill, 74 Wis. 2d 239, 246 N.W.2d 507 (1976).
134.01 AnnotationMalice is an integral element that must be proved under this section and must be proved in respect to both parties to the conspiracy. For conduct to be malicious under conspiracy law, it must be conduct intended to cause harm for harm’s sake. Maleki v. Fine-Lando Clinic Chartered, S.C., 162 Wis. 2d 73, 469 N.W.2d 629 (1991).
134.01 AnnotationA doctor’s personal service corporation was merely the alter ego of the doctor. The doctor and the corporation did not constitute “two or more persons” under this section. Wausau Medical Center, S.C. v. Asplund, 182 Wis. 2d 274, 514 N.W.2d 34 (Ct. App. 1994).
134.01 AnnotationAn employee’s claim against fellow employees for injury to reputation and profession was preempted by s. 102.03. Mudrovich v. Soto, 2000 WI App 174, 238 Wis. 2d 162, 617 N.W.2d 242, 99-1410.
134.01 AnnotationMalicious injury to reputation and business claims do not require the existence of a contract in order to lie. The economic loss doctrine does not apply in the case of an independent tort based on allegations distinct from any contract allegations that seeks separate, non-economic damages. Brew City Redevelopment Group, LLC v. Ferchill Group, 2006 WI 128, 297 Wis. 2d 606, 724 N.W.2d 879, 04-3238.
134.01 AnnotationThis section is a criminal statute, but Wisconsin courts have found an implied private right for victims of such conspiracies. To prove a claim under this section, a plaintiff must show that: 1) the defendants acted together; 2) with a common purpose to injure the plaintiff’s reputation or business; 3) with malice; and 4) the plaintiff suffered financial harm. Kuryakyn Holdings, LLC v. Ciro, LLC, 242 F. Supp. 3d 789 (2017).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 89
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Brew City Redevelopment Group, LLC v. Ferchill Group
Brew City Redevelopment Group, LLC v. Ferchill Group (2006)
“The Ferchill Group seeks review, contending (1) that Brew City's malicious injury to business claim under Wis. Stat. § 134.01 (2003-04) 2 is barred by the economic loss doctrine; (2) that Franke and Ferchill are immune from tortious interference with contract claims by virtue of…”
Brew City Redevelopment Group, LLC v. Ferchill Group (2006)
“t Wispark for breach of an "implied duty of good faith" (uppercasing omitted); (3) against Franke, Ferchill, and JTMK-Pabst for intentional interference with Brew City's contract with Wispark; (4) against Juneau Avenue Partners for "breach of fiduciary duty" (uppercasing…”
Landess v. Schmidt (1983)
“Landess claims that *189 neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel is applicable to his conspiracy claim under sec. 134.01, Stats. We hold that res judicata bars Landess' conspiracy claim against the respondents, Borden, Inc.”
Kuryakyn Holdings, LLC v. Ciro, LLC (2017)
“Conspiracy to injure business Kuryakyn claims that defendants violated Wis. Stat. § 134.01 , which “prohibits conspiracies between two or more people to willfully or maliciously injure the reputation, trade, business or profession of another.”
Segall v. Hurwitz (1983)
“Because a conspiracy (other *482 than a violation of sec. 134.01, Stats.) is not itself a tort, the date when a plaintiff is first injured by an act arising out of that conspiracy is not determinative.”
TECHWORKS, LLC v. Wille (2009)
“§ 134.01 and Wisconsin's common law; (6) Dolan and Red Anvil tortiously interfered with Techworks's contracts with its employees by trying to get some of those employees to leave Techworks and work for Red Anvil in violation of those employees' non-compete agreements with…”
Maleki v. Fine-Lando Clinic Chartered, S.C. (1991)
“Maleki commenced an action in the Milwaukee county circuit court alleging that he was the victim of a conspiracy between Fine-Lando Clinic and Co in violation of sec. 134.01, Stats. 3 Although other allegations of restraint of trade were asserted, all except the action brought…”
Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet (1983)
“Brockmeyer initially contends that Dun & Bradstreet's actions violated public policy as expressed in sec. 134.01, Stats., [18] and sec. 134.03.”
Bruner v. Heritage Companies (1999)
“; (3) conspiracy to convert; and (4) conspiracy to cause trade and business injury in violation of § 134.01, Stats. R.A. Bruner tendered the defense of the federal action to the Insurers, who denied coverage and refused to defend.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Lyons (1987)
“This does not entirely answer our inquiry, however, since Lyons’ claim is under sec. 134.01, Stats., not sec. 133.03. The issue thus becomes whether the underlying goals served by sec.”
Carlson v. City of Delafield (2011)
“To prove a claim for conspiracy under Wis. Stat. § 134.01 , a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendants acted together, (2) with a common purpose to injure the plaintiffs reputation and business, (3) with malice, and (4) the acts financially injured the plaintiff.”
Krier v. Vilione (2009)
“The plaintiffs' complaint asserted ten causes of action: violation of Wis. Stat. § 134.01 (2007-08), [11] injury to business; civil conspiracy; accounting negligence; breach of fiduciary duty; negligent training and supervision; negligent misrepresentation; strict responsibility…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.