Notes of Decisions
Cited in
58
cases (
15 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case:
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009).
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009).
· cites it 150× “See Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1)(a). Specifically, the plaintiff class postulates the following: Chapter 785, when read as a whole and in light of its legislative intent, history and purpose, gives the trial court discretion to impose remedial sanctions for any contempt of court that…”
Frisch v. Henrichs, 2007 WI 102 (Wis. 2007).
· cites it 20× “" Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1)(a), (b), and (c).”
Evans v. Luebke, 2003 WI App 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 18× “03 (l)(a), which establishes a procedure for the "nonsummary" imposition of remedial sanctions, and under Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1) which specifies allowable remedial sanctions.”
City of Milwaukee v. Washington, 2007 WI 104 (Wis. 2007).
· cites it 25× “Second, the court of appeals concluded that Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1), the remedial contempt statute, provided the circuit court with an alternate basis to confine Washington to the CJF.”
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2008 WI App 18 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 37× “" Use of the past tense in the statute plainly authorizes payment for injuries that occurred in the past. The legislature apparently recognized that bringing a party into compliance with a court order did not necessarily cure the harm the victim of the noncompliance had already…”
Lassa v. Rongstad, 2006 WI 105 (Wis. 2006).
· cites it 6× “As the circuit court has dismissed the underlying claim with prejudice, any relevance regarding First Amendment concerns would be now limited to the question of whether the circuit court should assess attorneys' fees against Rongstad, as opposed to whether the circuit court…”
City of Milwaukee v. Washington, 2006 WI App 99 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 18× “Although the trial court specifically struck all references to contempt in the proposed order before *272 it signed the order, we also address Washington's contention that confining her for more than six months is prohibited by Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (l)(b). ¶ 17. Both parties and…”
In Re Marriage of Benn v. Benn, 602 N.W.2d 65 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 6× “And finally, the circuit court's award of attorney fees under § 785.04 is a discretionary act. See Ably v.”
In Re Washington, 2007 WI 104 (Wis. 2007).
· cites it 25× “Second, the court of appeals concluded that Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1), the remedial contempt statute, provided the circuit court with an alternate basis to confine Washington to the CJF.”
Town of Seymour v. City of Eau Claire, 332 N.W.2d 821 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 5× “Additionally, the record indicates that the city’s construction of the transfer station was still possible. A consultant on transfer systems testified that the city could build the transfer station for $300,000 to $400,000.”
State v. Stewart, 916 N.W.2d 188 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The trial court stated that it did so pursuant to a Department of Corrections letter dated June 10, 2016, and Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (2)(a). The order commuting that sentence did not affect the sentences imposed on the identity theft charges and is not at issue here.”
State v. Gonzalez, 493 N.W.2d 410 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 9× “Thus, such acts may only be punished under the provisions of sec. 785.04, Stats. The state asserts that the term reflects the legislature's intent that the sec.”
— Wis. Stat. § 785.04(1) — 17 cases
Town of Seymour v. City of Eau Claire, 332 N.W.2d 821 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983).
“Additionally, the record indicates that the city’s construction of the transfer station was still possible. A consultant on transfer systems testified that the city could build the transfer station for $300,000 to $400,000.”
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009).
“See Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1)(a). Specifically, the plaintiff class postulates the following: Chapter 785, when read as a whole and in light of its legislative intent, history and purpose, gives the trial court discretion to impose remedial sanctions for any contempt of court that…”
Evans v. Luebke, 2003 WI App 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
“03 (l)(a), which establishes a procedure for the "nonsummary" imposition of remedial sanctions, and under Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1) which specifies allowable remedial sanctions.”
City of Milwaukee v. Washington, 2007 WI 104 (Wis. 2007).
“Second, the court of appeals concluded that Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1), the remedial contempt statute, provided the circuit court with an alternate basis to confine Washington to the CJF.”
In Re Washington, 2007 WI 104 (Wis. 2007).
“Second, the court of appeals concluded that Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1), the remedial contempt statute, provided the circuit court with an alternate basis to confine Washington to the CJF.”
— Wis. Stat. § 785.04(1)(a) — 12 cases
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009).
“See Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1)(a). Specifically, the plaintiff class postulates the following: Chapter 785, when read as a whole and in light of its legislative intent, history and purpose, gives the trial court discretion to impose remedial sanctions for any contempt of court that…”
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2008 WI App 18 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
“" Use of the past tense in the statute plainly authorizes payment for injuries that occurred in the past. The legislature apparently recognized that bringing a party into compliance with a court order did not necessarily cure the harm the victim of the noncompliance had already…”
— Wis. Stat. § 785.04(1)(b) — 9 cases
Frisch v. Henrichs, 2007 WI 102 (Wis. 2007).
“" Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1)(a), (b), and (c).”
City of Milwaukee v. Washington, 2006 WI App 99 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
“Although the trial court specifically struck all references to contempt in the proposed order before *272 it signed the order, we also address Washington's contention that confining her for more than six months is prohibited by Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (l)(b). ¶ 17. Both parties and…”
In Re Washington, 2007 WI 104 (Wis. 2007).
“Second, the court of appeals concluded that Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1), the remedial contempt statute, provided the circuit court with an alternate basis to confine Washington to the CJF.”
— Wis. Stat. § 785.04(1)(c) — 6 cases
Lassa v. Rongstad, 2006 WI 105 (Wis. 2006).
“As the circuit court has dismissed the underlying claim with prejudice, any relevance regarding First Amendment concerns would be now limited to the question of whether the circuit court should assess attorneys' fees against Rongstad, as opposed to whether the circuit court…”
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009).
“See Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1)(a). Specifically, the plaintiff class postulates the following: Chapter 785, when read as a whole and in light of its legislative intent, history and purpose, gives the trial court discretion to impose remedial sanctions for any contempt of court that…”
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2008 WI App 18 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
“" Use of the past tense in the statute plainly authorizes payment for injuries that occurred in the past. The legislature apparently recognized that bringing a party into compliance with a court order did not necessarily cure the harm the victim of the noncompliance had already…”
— Wis. Stat. § 785.04(1)(d) — 3 cases
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009).
“See Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1)(a). Specifically, the plaintiff class postulates the following: Chapter 785, when read as a whole and in light of its legislative intent, history and purpose, gives the trial court discretion to impose remedial sanctions for any contempt of court that…”
— Wis. Stat. § 785.04(1)(e) — 4 cases
City of Milwaukee v. Washington, 2006 WI App 99 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
“Although the trial court specifically struck all references to contempt in the proposed order before *272 it signed the order, we also address Washington's contention that confining her for more than six months is prohibited by Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (l)(b). ¶ 17. Both parties and…”
— Wis. Stat. § 785.04(2) — 4 cases
— Wis. Stat. § 785.04(2)(a) — 4 cases
— Wis. Stat. § 785.04(2)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Gonzalez, 493 N.W.2d 410 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
“Thus, such acts may only be punished under the provisions of sec. 785.04, Stats. The state asserts that the term reflects the legislature's intent that the sec.”
— Wis. Stat. § 785.04(l)(a) — 4 cases
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009).
“See Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1)(a). Specifically, the plaintiff class postulates the following: Chapter 785, when read as a whole and in light of its legislative intent, history and purpose, gives the trial court discretion to impose remedial sanctions for any contempt of court that…”
In Re Marriage of Benn v. Benn, 602 N.W.2d 65 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
“And finally, the circuit court's award of attorney fees under § 785.04 is a discretionary act. See Ably v.”
Evans v. Luebke, 2003 WI App 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
“03 (l)(a), which establishes a procedure for the "nonsummary" imposition of remedial sanctions, and under Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1) which specifies allowable remedial sanctions.”
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2008 WI App 18 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
“" Use of the past tense in the statute plainly authorizes payment for injuries that occurred in the past. The legislature apparently recognized that bringing a party into compliance with a court order did not necessarily cure the harm the victim of the noncompliance had already…”
— Wis. Stat. § 785.04(l)(b) — 5 cases
Frisch v. Henrichs, 2007 WI 102 (Wis. 2007).
“" Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1)(a), (b), and (c).”
City of Milwaukee v. Washington, 2007 WI 104 (Wis. 2007).
“Second, the court of appeals concluded that Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1), the remedial contempt statute, provided the circuit court with an alternate basis to confine Washington to the CJF.”
— Wis. Stat. § 785.04(l)(c) — 4 cases
Evans v. Luebke, 2003 WI App 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
“03 (l)(a), which establishes a procedure for the "nonsummary" imposition of remedial sanctions, and under Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1) which specifies allowable remedial sanctions.”
Lassa v. Rongstad, 2006 WI 105 (Wis. 2006).
“As the circuit court has dismissed the underlying claim with prejudice, any relevance regarding First Amendment concerns would be now limited to the question of whether the circuit court should assess attorneys' fees against Rongstad, as opposed to whether the circuit court…”
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009).
“See Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1)(a). Specifically, the plaintiff class postulates the following: Chapter 785, when read as a whole and in light of its legislative intent, history and purpose, gives the trial court discretion to impose remedial sanctions for any contempt of court that…”
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2008 WI App 18 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
“" Use of the past tense in the statute plainly authorizes payment for injuries that occurred in the past. The legislature apparently recognized that bringing a party into compliance with a court order did not necessarily cure the harm the victim of the noncompliance had already…”
— Wis. Stat. § 785.04(l)(d) — 2 cases
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009).
“See Wis. Stat. § 785.04 (1)(a). Specifically, the plaintiff class postulates the following: Chapter 785, when read as a whole and in light of its legislative intent, history and purpose, gives the trial court discretion to impose remedial sanctions for any contempt of court that…”
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.
