Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the issue, and whether the issue was proffered by one and controverted by another. See Gies v. Nissen Corp., 57 Wis.2d 371, 204 N.W.2d 519, 525 (1973). The Wisconsin Supreme Court considers an issue to be “joined” between the parties when one party has served a formal pleading asking for relief against the other party. See id. (first co-defendant who served cross-claim for contribution on second co-defendant had joined the issue of their respective liability to the plaintiff; thus, first co-defendant was bound by judgment in that action, which dismissed second co-defendant). The formal-pleading requirement serves to ensure that the parties joined the issue between them by requesting relief, and that either party can enforce such requested relief. See, e.g., Goldblatt, 417 N.W.2d at 419 (<HOLDING>). The Streitzes and Marshall were not formal 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that claim preclusion did not bar fire insurer from bringing a second action against its coplaintiff in first action (B) holding claim preclusion did not foreclose plaintiffs second action even though it arose out of the same lease agreement as that of a prior action (C) holding that a negligence claim against an insured and a bad faith claim against the insurer are not separate as the first must be proved to prevail on the second (D) holding that entire controversy doctrine did not bar second lawsuit against defendant who was not party to first lawsuit in another state (E) holding res judicata precluded landlord from bringing second action for damages of unpaid future rents after a final judgment determined tenants damages arising out of the breach of lease in landlords first action
Output (English): holding that entire controversy doctrine did not bar second lawsuit against defendant who was not party to first lawsuit in another state