Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2009AP775 E-Z Roll Off, LLC, v. County of Oneida

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//July 13, 2011//

2009AP775 E-Z Roll Off, LLC, v. County of Oneida

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//July 13, 2011//

Listen to this article

Antitrust
Municipal defendants; notice of claim

Antitrust actions brought pursuant to sec. 133.18 are not exempt from the notice of claim requirements found in sec. 893.80(1).

“While we find the reasoning of Gillen to be instructive, we conclude that its holding is inapplicable to the present case. In contrast to the plaintiffs in Gillen, E-Z does not seek immediate injunctive relief under § 133.16. Rather, E-Z seeks declaratory relief and damages under Wis. Stat. § 133.18. Unlike immediate injunctive relief, which ‘is designed to prevent injury,’ Gillen, 219 Wis. 2d at 821, declaratory relief is not, by its nature, in conflict with providing governmental entities a 120-day period to review a claim. We note that the Declaratory Judgment Act, found in Wis. Stat. § 806.04, provides no statute of limitations. We further note that § 133.18 provides a six-year limitations period for actions seeking damages for violations of antitrust law.[13] Accordingly, neither E-Z’s claim for declaratory relief nor E-Z’s claim for damages is brought pursuant to a specific statute whose terms conflict with the general notice of claim requirements found in Wis. Stat. § 893.80.”

“We therefore hold that § 133.18 does not contain a specific statutory scheme in conflict with the notice of claim requirements found in § 893.80.”

Reversed.

2009AP775 E-Z Roll Off, LLC, v. County of Oneida

Gableman, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Connell, James B., Wausau; For Respondent: Ford, Michele M., Milwaukee; Juettner, John T., Milwaukee

Full Text

Polls

Should Hollywood and Nashville stay out of politics?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests