Legal Opinion · Dissent

Menard, Inc. v. Liteway Lighting Products

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 2005No. 2003AP1391Published

1DissentN. Patrick Crooks, J.

¶ 57. {dissenting). I strongly disagree with the majority that Menard's lawsuit against Liteway is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.1 The majority concludes that all three ele*617ments for claim preclusion are present and, additionally, that Menard was required to raise its claims in the action brought by Liteway pursuant to the common-law compulsory counterclaim exception to Wisconsin's permissive counterclaim statute, Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 802.07(1) (1999-2000)2 I respectfully dissent because there is no identity of claims or causes of action between the first and second suits involving…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Kruckenberg v. HarveyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2005
  2. A.B.C.G. Enterprises, Inc. v. First Bank Southeast, N.A.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Dugenske v. DugenskeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Klaus v. Vander HeydenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Split Rock Hardwoods, Inc. v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2002

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API