Security Finance v. Brian Kirsch (Wisconsin Consumer Act)

In Security Finance v. Brian Kirsch (2019 WI 42), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that debtors sued without first receiving a notice of right to cure default may not sue a creditor for damages under the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The underlying claim in this case arose when Security Finance sued Brian Kirsch for a default […]

Continue Reading ›

Maple Grove Country Club, Inc. v. Maple Grove Estates Sanitary District (Notice of Claim)

In Maple Grove Country Club, Inc. v. Maple Grove Estates Sanitary District (2019 WI 43), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that failure to comply with the notice of claim statute is an affirmative defense. If a party fails to set forth the affirmative defense in a responsive pleading, the defense is waived. Maple Grove Country […]

Continue Reading ›

Daniel v. Armslist, LLC (Communications Decency Act Liability)

In Daniel v. Armslist, LLC (2019 WI 47), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) prohibited liability claims against a website for publishing a third-party seller’s advertisement. The underlying claim is against Armslist.com, which connects arms buyers and sellers with each other. Radcliffe Haughton, who had been legally prohibited from […]

Continue Reading ›

Cattau v. National Insurance Services of Wisconsin, Inc. (Pleading Standard)

In Cattau v. National Insurance Services of Wisconsin, Inc. (2019 WI 46), a unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers, LLC did not heighten the pleading standard in Wisconsin. However, the court was divided as to whether plaintiffs in this case stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. […]

Continue Reading ›

Legislature to Intervene in Act 21 Cases

The Legislature’s Joint Committee on Legislative Organization has voted to intervene in two cases addressing the application of 2011 Act 21. The 2011 legislation clarified that agencies may not enforce requirements unless explicitly permitted by statute or properly promulgated rule. The two cases, both titled Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, would clarify the general scope […]

Continue Reading ›

Rabitoy v. Billington (Safe Place Statute & Negligent Supervision)

In Rabitoy v. Billington (2018AP270), the Court of Appeals District III held that a property owner was not liable for injuries sustained when an employee on his property misused equipment outside the scope of his employment. Defendant Robert Billington employed Richard Klobucher, who lived on Billington’s property, for odd jobs on the property including repairing […]

Continue Reading ›

Supreme Court Accepts Clean Wisconsin v. DNR Appeal

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal in Clean Wisconsin v. DNR, which will decide whether 2011 Act 21 precludes DNR from considering cumulative environmental impacts in issuing high capacity well permits under Wis. Stat. § 281.34. The Court of Appeals District II had submitted in January a certification for the Supreme Court to […]

Continue Reading ›

Assembly Committee Passes Bills Changing Certain Notice of Claim, Pleading Procedures

The Assembly Committee on Judiciary has passed two bills that would make changes to Wisconsin procedures for service of certain documents. The bills, authored by Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison), Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison), and Sen. Duey Stroebel (R-Saukville), passed the committee unanimously and are now available for scheduling on the Assembly floor. AB 58 would […]

Continue Reading ›

Abusive Work Environments Cause of Action Legislation Introduced

Rep. Sondy Pope (D-Mt. Horeb) has introduced legislation (AB 116) that would create a new cause of action outside of worker’s compensation for abusive work environments. The bill provides an exception to the exclusive remedy of worker’s compensation when employees allege they have been subjected to an abusive work environment. Employees alleging injury from an […]

Continue Reading ›

Smith v. Goshaw (Property Manager Negligence)

In Smith v. Goshaw (2017AP2008), the Court of Appeals District III held that the defendant was entitled to a new trial because the jury received instructions that erroneously elevated the standard of care landlords must exercise for upkeep of properties. Plaintiff Nevin Smith was injured when a fire escape collapsed while he was standing on […]

Continue Reading ›