Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Cox v. Wisconsin Department of Health & Social Services

184 Wis. 2d 309 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Cox v. Wisconsin Department of Health & Social Services

8 Citing cases

  1. Vogel v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

    214 Wis. 2d 443 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 12 times
    Denying plaintiff's claim for increased workers' compensation insurance premiums, finding the damages too remote from the act of negligence

    Public policy determinations in this state that are within the ambit of judicial authority are made by the supreme court. See Swan v. Elections Bd., 133 Wis.2d 87, 93-94, 394 N.W.2d 732, 734-735 (1986); Cox v. Wisconsin Department of Health Social Services, 184 Wis.2d 309, 315 n. 1, 517 N.W.2d 526, 528 n. 1 (Ct.App. 1994). The supreme court has accepted the no-holds-barred view of tort liability: "The duty of any person is the obligation of due care to refrain from any act which will cause foreseeable harm to others even though the nature of that harm and the identity of the harmed person or harmed interest is unknown at the time of the act."

  2. In the re Refusal of Edidin

    639 N.W.2d 223 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001)

    Finally, if a statute clearly sets forth the legislative intent, we simply apply the statute to the facts presented. Cox v. DHSS, 184 Wis.2d 309, 316, 517 N.W.2d 526 (Ct.App. 1994). ¶ 6. Applying these principles, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 343.305 clearly sets forth the legislative intent that an arresting officer may request an OMVWI arrestee to submit to any of the three tests for alcohol concentration specified in the statute.

  3. Purdy v. Cap Gemini America Inc.

    2001 WI App. 270 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 10 times
    In Purdy, the court of appeals reviewed whether a request for attorney fees based on a provision in Purdy's employment contract was made too late. Purdy, 248 Wis. 2d 804, ¶ 3.

    State v. Mendoza, 96 Wis.2d 106, 114, 291 N.W.2d 478 (1980). If a statute clearly sets forth the legislative intent, we simply apply the statute to the facts presented. Cox v. DHSS, 184 Wis.2d 309, 316, 517 N.W.2d 526 (Ct.App. 1994). If, however, the language of a statute is ambiguous, we must look beyond its language and examine such things as its scope, history, context, subject matter, and purpose.

  4. Olmsted v. Circuit Court for Dane County

    2000 WI App. 261 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that "when one party is indigent and the other is not, a court's only option is to order the non-indigent party to pay the guardian ad litem's fees"

    State v.Mendoza, 96 Wis.2d 106, 114, 291 N.W.2d 478 (1980). If a statute clearly sets forth the legislative intent, we simply apply the statute to the facts presented. Cox v. DHSS, 184 Wis.2d 309, 316, 517 N.W.2d 526 (Ct.App. 1994). ¶ 7. Wisconsin Stat. § 767.045(6) provides as follows:

  5. Leete v. General Casualty Company

    Case No. 99-3099-FT (Wis. Ct. App. Jun. 13, 2000)

    We need not look at extrinsic sources for the legislature's intent or the public policy behind the statute unless the statute was ambiguous. SeeCox v. DHSS, 184 Wis.2d 309, 316, 517 N.W.2d 526 (Ct.App. 1994). Statutes are ambiguous if they reasonably allow more than one construction.

  6. State v. Delbosque

    Case No. 98-2740-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 1999)

    State v.Mendoza, 96 Wis.2d 106, 114, 291 N.W.2d 478, 483 (1980). If a statute clearly sets forth the legislative intent, courts simply apply the statute to the facts presented. SeeCox v. DHSS, 184 Wis.2d 309, 316, 517 N.W.2d 526, 528 (Ct.App. 1994). Appellate courts determine the meaning of words and phrases in a statute in light of the statute as a whole.

  7. State v. Eastman

    582 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 5 times

    State v. Mendoza, 96 Wis.2d 106, 114, 291 N.W.2d 478, 483 (1980). If a statute clearly sets forth the legislative intent, we simply apply the statute to the facts presented. See Cox v. DHSS, 184 Wis.2d 309, 316, 517 N.W.2d 526, 528 (Ct.App. 1994). Eastman argues that the statutes she claims are relevant to the present dispute create an ambiguity which we should resolve in her favor in order to avoid an absurd or unreasonable result.

  8. State v. Martinez

    210 Wis. 2d 396 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 21 times
    In State v. Martinez, 210 Wis.2d 396, 403, n 4; 563 N.W.2d 922 (1997), the defendant was convicted of, inter alia, maintaining a drug house, Wis. Stat. Ann. 161.42, after police executed a search warrant on the premises occupied by the defendant, his brother, his sister-in-law, and other family members, and where police found marijuana and other controlled substances.

    If a statute clearly sets forth the legislative intent, we simply apply the statute to the facts presented. See Cox v. DHSS, 184 Wis.2d 309, 316, 517 N.W.2d 526, 528 (Ct.App. 1994). Officers found a "Dr.