Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 844.19 (2026)
Damages
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
844.19(1)(1) General. If damages are proper, the findings or verdict shall indicate the amount of damages awardable to each person interested.
844.19(2)(2) Waste; double damages. If the injury or interference constitutes waste, the court shall give judgment for double the damages found.
844.19 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 189; Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 767 (1975); Stats. 1975 s. 844.19.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1987–1993 · leading case: Three & One Co. v. Geilfuss, 504 N.W.2d 393 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
Three & One Co. v. Geilfuss, 504 N.W.2d 393 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “61, which was doubled under sec. 844.19(2), Stats., to $6635.22. The tenants raise five issues on appeal: (1) whether the damage to the leased premises constituted waste, (2) what is the proper measure of damages for waste, (3) whether the trial court erred in assessing late…”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Spencer's Kenosha Bowl Inc., 404 N.W.2d 109 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “In its brief, Prudential argues that it is entitled to double damages for Spencer’s waste under sec. 844.19(2), Stats. Because Prudential has not filed a cross-appeal in this action, we do not address this issue.”
Prudential Ins. v. SPENCER'S BOWL, 404 N.W.2d 109 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “[5] In its brief, Prudential argues that it is entitled to double damages for Spencer's waste under sec. 844.19(2), Stats. Because Prudential has not filed a cross-appeal in this action, we do not address this issue.”
Wis. Stat. § 844.19(2): 3 cases
Three & One Co. v. Geilfuss, 504 N.W.2d 393 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “61, which was doubled under sec. 844.19(2), Stats., to $6635.22. The tenants raise five issues on appeal: (1) whether the damage to the leased premises constituted waste, (2) what is the proper measure of damages for waste, (3) whether the trial court erred in assessing late…”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Spencer's Kenosha Bowl Inc., 404 N.W.2d 109 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “In its brief, Prudential argues that it is entitled to double damages for Spencer’s waste under sec. 844.19(2), Stats. Because Prudential has not filed a cross-appeal in this action, we do not address this issue.”
Prudential Ins. v. SPENCER'S BOWL, 404 N.W.2d 109 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “[5] In its brief, Prudential argues that it is entitled to double damages for Spencer's waste under sec. 844.19(2), Stats. Because Prudential has not filed a cross-appeal in this action, we do not address this issue.”
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.