E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. County of Oneida, 800 N.W.2d 421

E-Z Roll Off sued Oneida County over a Waste Management contract that reduced the tipping fee to $5.25/ton for Waste Management, while other haulers paid $54.00/ton.
The contract also required Waste Management to remove loaded transfer trailers and pay $24.50/ton for disposal; E-Z alleged this violated Wis. Stat. § 133.03(1) and sought § 133.18 damages.
Oneida County argued E-Z failed to meet Wis. Stat. § 893.80 notice-of-claim requirements, and the circuit court granted summary judgment for the County.
The court of appeals reversed, holding that antitrust actions under § 133.18 are exempt from § 893.80(1) notice requirements.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 133.18 actions are exempt and whether E-Z met notice requirements.
The majority held that § 133.18 actions are not exempt and that E-Z did not file timely notice; the circuit court’s summary judgment was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are § 133.18 antitrust actions exempt from § 893.80(1) notice?	E-Z contends § 133.18 is a specific statutory scheme exempting its claim.	Oneida County argues no exemption; § 893.80(1) applies generally.	Not exempt; § 133.18 actions must comply with § 893.80(1).
Was E-Z's notice of claim filed within 120 days of the event?	Discovery of the contract in Feb. 2004 tolled accrual; notice within 120 days of discovery.	Event occurred at contract signing (June 25, 2003); notice by Sept. 28, 2005 was untimely.	Untimely; notice filed long after 120 days.
Did actual notice and lack of prejudice save the claim?	County had actual notice and prejudice was not shown.	Even with potential actual notice, prejudice was not proved; burden on E-Z to show lack of prejudice.	E-Z failed to prove lack of prejudice; exception not satisfied.
Does the continuing-violation doctrine apply to notice-of-claim timing here?	Each higher tipping fee could trigger a new accrual under continuing violations.	Wisconsin law does not apply continuing-violation accrual to § 893.80 timing.	Rejected; continuing-violation doctrine does not apply to § 893.80 timing.

Gillen v. City of Neenah, 219 Wis.2d 806 (Wis. 1998) (supports exemption where a statute allows immediate injunctive relief; not controlling for this antitrust claim)
Town of Burke v. City of Madison, 225 Wis.2d 615 (Wis. 1999) (three-factor test for exemptions to § 893.80(1))
Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrange, 200 Wis.2d 585 (Wis. 1996) (modifies broad application of § 893.80(1) exemptions)
Nesbitt Farms, LLC v. City of Madison, 265 Wis.2d 422 (Wis. 2003) (recognizes three-factor framework for exemptions)
Oak Creek Citizen's Action Comm. v. City of Oak Creek, 304 Wis.2d 702 (Wis. 2007) (applies Town of Burke framework to exemptions)
Olsen v. Twp. of Spooner, 133 Wis.2d 371 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986) (defines prejudice inquiry under § 893.80(1)(a))
Ecker Bros. v. Calumet Cnty., 2009 WI App 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009) (recognizes three-factor test for exemptions to § 893.80)