Law Commons^™

The Economic Loss Doctrine: Intrinsic Or Extrinsic Fraud, Ralph Anzivino

Marquette Law Review

The economic loss doctrine provides that when a product is sold and results in economic loss for the buyer (no property or personal injury), the buyer’s sole remedy is to sue for breach of contract, not in tort. The two exceptions to the economic loss doctrine are contracts that are predominately for services and contracts where a party is fraudulently induced to enter into the contract.

Fraudulent inducement occurs when one party either fails to disclose a material fact or knowingly misrepresents a significant fact, and thereby induces the other party to enter into a contract. The fraudulent inducement, however, …

A Breach Of Trust: Rock-Koshkonong Lake District V. State Department Of Natural Resources And Wisconsin's Public Trust Doctrine, Anne-Louise Mittal

Marquette Law Review

Wisconsin has a particularly notable tradition of using the public trust doctrine aggressively to protect the state’s natural resources. The general thrust of the doctrine’s evolution in Wisconsin has been expansion beyond the doctrine’s traditional application to waters navigable for commercial purposes. Emblematic of such expansion is the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Just v. Marinette County, which scholars have characterized as a landmark extension of the public trust doctrine to non- navigable wetlands adjacent to navigable waters. In light of this tradition, it is unsurprising that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement that the Department of Natural Resources …

Picking Up The Remnants Post-Waller: Properly Limiting The Scope Of Uneconomic Remnant Claims In Wisconsin Eminent Domain Proceedings, Samuel A. Magnuson

Marquette Law Review

Statutory interpretation often requires a court to review the legislative intent behind the statute. However, this task is not always easily undertaken when the intent of the legislature is itself unclear. A recent Wisconsin Supreme Court case illustrates the difficulty in properly interpreting arguably ambiguous statutory language. Nevertheless, this Comment hopes to demonstrate that by examining the history of remnant theory, it should be clear that uneconomic remnant claims in eminent domain proceedings were intended to be limited to situations where the partial taking creates either a physical remnant or a financial remnant. Furthermore, this Comment argues that the Wisconsin …