Menard, Inc. v. Liteway Lighting Products
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Kruckenberg v. HarveyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2005
- A.B.C.G. Enterprises, Inc. v. First Bank Southeast, N.A.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
- Dugenske v. DugenskeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- Klaus v. Vander HeydenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
- Split Rock Hardwoods, Inc. v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.