Legal Opinion · Dissent

E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. County of Oneida

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 13, 2011No. 2009AP775Published

1DissentPatience Drake Roggensack, J.

¶ 55. (dissenting). Appellate courts apply a three-part test to determine whether the notice requirement of Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1) (2009-10)1 applies to the claim under review. Oak Creek Citizen's Action Comm. v. City of Oak Creek, 2007 WI App 196, ¶ 7, 304 Wis. 2d 702, 738 N.W.2d 168. I conclude that E-Z Roll Off, LLC (E-Z) makes a restraint of trade claim under ch. 133 of the Wisconsin Statutes that meets the three-part test for an exception to the requirements of § 893.80(1): (1) ch. 133 provides a specific statutory scheme for the identification and resolution of claims; (2) compliance…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Richards v. Badger Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2008
  2. State Ex Rel. Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrangeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State Department of Natural Resources v. City of WaukeshaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Thorp v. Town of LebanonWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Gillen v. City of NeenahWisconsin Supreme Court · 1998

7 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