V-B

Law & application · cases

Case law,
without slogans.

Each decision is paired with the proposition it actually supports and the limit that prevents the holding from being overstated.

Custody, placement, and parental rights

Best interests must meet the governing rule

Justia opinion

Troxel v. Granville

530 U.S. 57 (2000) · U.S. Supreme Court

Rule
The Due Process Clause protects a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of the parent’s children.
Limit
Troxel addressed a nonparent-visitation statute as applied. It does not eliminate the best-interest standard in an ordinary dispute between parents.
Read source

Justia opinion

Santosky v. Kramer

455 U.S. 745 (1982) · U.S. Supreme Court

Rule
Before permanently terminating parental rights, the State must prove parental unfitness by at least clear and convincing evidence.
Limit
The heightened burden concerns termination of parental rights. It should not be stated as the burden for every custody or placement restriction.
Read source

Justia opinion

Hartung v. Hartung

102 Wis. 2d 58 (1981) · Wisconsin Supreme Court

Rule
A discretionary determination must rest on the facts of record, the applicable law, and a demonstrated reasoning process leading to a reasonable conclusion.
Limit
Hartung supplies the framework for reviewing discretion; it does not dictate the outcome of every family-law dispute.
Read source

Official Wisconsin Courts opinion

Hughes v. Hughes

223 Wis. 2d 111 (Ct. App. 1998) · Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Rule
Custody and placement modification is discretionary, but the court must apply the correct legal standard to the record and reach a reasonable result.
Limit
The decision also addressed relocation and whether a child would testify. Match the cited proposition to the relevant part of the opinion.
Read source

Justia opinion

Keller v. Keller

2002 WI App 161 · Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Rule
A substantial modification after two years requires a substantial change in circumstances and the child’s best interests; Wisconsin law does not create a presumption of equal placement.
Limit
Keller rejected an equal-placement presumption. It did not hold that equal placement is disfavored or unavailable.
Read source

Justia opinion

Landwehr v. Landwehr

2006 WI 64 · Wisconsin Supreme Court

Rule
The directive to maximize regularly occurring, meaningful placement does not create an equal-placement presumption or displace the court’s best-interest discretion.
Limit
Use Landwehr accurately: maximizing meaningful placement and ordering equal placement are not synonymous.
Read source

Justia opinion

Barstad v. Frazier

118 Wis. 2d 549 (1984) · Wisconsin Supreme Court

Rule
In a custody dispute between a parent and a third party, the parent prevails unless the parent is unfit or unable to care for the child, or compelling circumstances justify displacement.
Limit
Barstad concerns parent-versus-third-party custody; it is not the ordinary standard for disputes between two parents.
Read source

Official statute page and case annotation

Holtzman v. Knott

193 Wis. 2d 649 (1995) · Wisconsin Supreme Court

Rule
A nonparent invoking equitable visitation must allege a parent-like relationship and a significant triggering event before the court reaches best interests.
Limit
The source link is the official Wisconsin statute annotation because a complete Justia opinion page was not available. Later statutes and decisions must also be checked.
Read source

Justia opinion

Michels v. Lyons

2019 WI 57 · Wisconsin Supreme Court

Rule
A fit parent’s visitation decision receives a presumption of validity; the nonparent must rebut it by clear and convincing evidence that the decision is not in the child’s best interest.
Limit
Michels concerned the grandparent-visitation statute as applied. It does not create a universal burden for every family-court issue.
Read source

Evidence preservation

When litigation becomes a distinct possibility

Justia opinion

Milwaukee Constructors II v. MMSD

177 Wis. 2d 523 (Ct. App. 1993) · Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Rule
A preservation duty may arise when a party knew or should have known that litigation was a distinct possibility; spoliation sanctions depend on the circumstances and degree of culpability.
Limit
Wisconsin does not have one general ‘litigation hold statute.’ The duty develops through spoliation decisions and procedural rules.
Read source

Justia opinion

Garfoot v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.

228 Wis. 2d 707 (Ct. App. 1999) · Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Rule
Whether to impose a spoliation sanction and which sanction to impose are discretionary decisions tied to the record and governing standards.
Limit
The availability and severity of sanctions turn on culpability, prejudice, and the specific remedy requested.
Read source

Justia opinion

American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Golke

2009 WI 81 · Wisconsin Supreme Court

Rule
A potential litigant with a legitimate reason to destroy evidence may discharge the preservation duty by providing reasonable notice of the claim, its basis, the evidence, and an opportunity to inspect.
Limit
Golke does not authorize routine destruction merely because notice was sent; the notice and opportunity must be reasonable under the actual circumstances.
Read source

Federal jurisdiction and judicial protections

The barriers before the merits

Justia opinion

Stump v. Sparkman

435 U.S. 349 (1978) · U.S. Supreme Court

Rule
Judges generally have absolute damages immunity for judicial acts unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
Limit
The analysis turns on the nature of the act and jurisdiction—not simply whether the ruling was alleged to be erroneous or unconstitutional.
Read source

Justia opinion

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.

544 U.S. 280 (2005) · U.S. Supreme Court

Rule
Rooker-Feldman is narrow and applies to state-court losers seeking federal district-court review and rejection of state judgments rendered before the federal case began.
Limit
It does not replace ordinary preclusion law or bar every federal claim related to a state proceeding.
Read source

Justia opinion

Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs

571 U.S. 69 (2013) · U.S. Supreme Court

Rule
Younger abstention is exceptional and generally confined to three categories of ongoing state proceedings identified by the Court.
Limit
An ongoing state case alone does not automatically establish Younger abstention.
Read source

Justia opinion

Ankenbrandt v. Richards

504 U.S. 689 (1992) · U.S. Supreme Court

Rule
The domestic-relations exception is a narrow limitation on diversity jurisdiction for decrees of divorce, alimony, and child custody.
Limit
Do not state it as a universal bar to federal-question claims merely because the facts arose in a family dispute.
Read source