Decision in 'Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Winch' 2009 WI 64

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2008AP3016-D) ordering the stipulated three year suspension. Opinion Per Curiam

"Overlawyered" in its eleventh year

Mickey Kaus, yesterday, with congratulations to

Walter Olson [who] started his Overlawyered blog 10 years ago. The high process costs of litigation are what lawyers--for obvious reasons--habitually leave out of their let's-have-notice-and-a-hearing-for-everything reasoning. One thing Olson does is to put them back in.

Order on transfer of post-judgment child support cases to tribal court, 2009 WI 63

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on July 1, 2009 issued an order [html | pdf] effective immediately. See Rule governing the discretionary transfer of cases to tribal court 2008 WI 114

The court agreed to amend the proposal to reflect a suggestion from the Wisconsin Department of Justice requiring an explicit finding of concurrent jurisdiction as part of the amendment. ... A majority of the court then confirmed its decision to grant the request of the Department. Justice Patience Drake Roggensack stated she dissented from the adoption of the amendment and made a statement on the record explaining the basis for her dissent. She was joined by Justice Ziegler and Justice Gableman.

In the matter of the petition to create a rule governing the discretionary transfer of cases to tribal court (07-11A)

Order for IOLTA comparability, 2009 WI 62

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on July 1, 2009 issued an order [html | pdf] effective January 1, 2010. See WisTAF and banks meet in friendly debate at Wisconsin Supreme Court on petition seeking comparable interest rates on IOLTA accounts.

the court granted the petition with modifications. Justice Ziegler did not participate. Justice Roggensack dissented from the adoption of the removal provision, SCR 20:1.15 (cm)(2)d., of the rule, and Justice Roggensack and Justice Gableman dissented from the adoption of that portion of the rule which permits the use of sweep accounts for IOLTA accounts.

In the matter of amendment of SCR 20:1.15 Safekeeping property; trust accounts and fiduciary accounts (08-03)

Petition filed to permit expungement of records without statutory authorization

On June 30, 2009, Diane S. Diel, President, State Bar of Wisconsin, filed a Petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court to permit courts to expunge records, even in the absence of statutory authority, on the basis of their inherent authority. Among the reasons given is (pp. 11-12)

As this Court is aware, CCAP can be reviewed by anyone with internet access and the information contained on the website is regularly misused. CCAP publishes the original criminal case information regardless of the outcome of the case. Court records may also be open to public inspection at each county courthouse. To allow continued access to such easily misunderstood information especially in cases in which the case was dismissed or there was a judgment of acquittal, poses the risk that such a record could be “a vehicle for improper purposes,” whether intentional or not. Nixon [v. Warner Communications, Inc.], 435 U.S. [589] at 597.

In the Matter of: The Petition of the State Bar of Wisconsin to Modify Chapter 72 of the Supreme Court Rules (09-07)

Decision in 'Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Molinaro' 2009 WI 61

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2007AP869-D) imposing a 60 day suspension, rather than the referee's recommended 30 months, and requiring reimbursement of less than the entire cost of the proceeedings. Opinion Per Curiam

Appellate opinions week of June 29, 2009

Wisconsin Supreme Court, Wisconsin Court of Appeals before July 1, 2009 (non-citable unpublished), and Wisconsin Court of Appeals after June 30, 2009 (citable unpublished), see Order permitting citing unpublished Court of Appeals opinions, 2009 WI 2


Citation of unpublished opinions starts July 1, by David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal, June 24, 2009


Committee to study impact of allowing unpublished opinion cites, The Third Branch, Spring 2009 (via WisBlawg)

The Supreme Court ordered that a committee be convened to gather information on the impact of the rule amendment. Over a three-year period the committee will compile statistics and analyze trends of filings and dispositions as they relate to unpublished opinions.

Decision in 'State v. Ward' 2009 WI 60

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2007AP79-CR) affirming the Court of Appeals. See Argument.
Opinion by Justice Roggensack
Dissent by Justice Crooks, with Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley

The Puzzle of Hamilton's Federalist No. 77:

The Puzzle of Hamilton's Federalist No. 77: It Turns out Hamilton was Right After All, by Seth Barrett Tillman, abstract of an upcoming article, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 33, pp. 1-15, 2010

This is the enigmatic great white whale among Founding-era documents.

Partisans of Senate (or congressional power) agree with Hamilton (or, at least, they think they agree with Hamilton). These commentators look back to the Tenure in Office Act and to any number of statements made on the floor of the House when statutory removal was first debated in 1789 -- all purportedly consistent with Hamilton's statement here. Partisans of presidential power disagree with Hamilton (or, at least, they think they do). They affirm that Hamilton erred. These commentators look to Myers v. United States [272 U.S. 52 (1926)] and to statements made by Madison on the floor of the House during the statutory removal debates. The consensus view, nay - the universal view, is that Hamilton was speaking to the issue of the "removal" of federal officers.

Decision in 'Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Boyd' 2009 WI 59

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2008AP976-D) accepting the referee's recommended six months suspension.
Opinion Per Curiam

Petition filed to permit some non-resident Bar officers

On June 24, 2009, our State Bar's President Diane S. Diel filed a Petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In the matter of: The petition of the State Bar of Wisconsin proposing revisions to SCR 10.04(1) to permit non-resident members to serve as certain officers of the State Bar of Wisconsin (09-06)

Supreme Court accepts two new cases

The Wisconsin Supreme Court issue a press release announcing it has granted review in State v. Jensen (2008AP552-CR) and accepted certification in Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District (2008AP967). See Supreme Court pending cases June 17, 2009.


Among the cases not accepted were:

Allright Properties v. City of Milwaukee (2008AP510)
Justice Prosser dissents

Sanitary Dist. No. 4 v. City of Brookfield (2008AP511)
Supreme Court backs Brookfield annexation, by Lisa Sink, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Posted: June 17, 2009

State v. Jackson (2008AP651-CR)
Justice Bradley dissents

Kingstad v. State Bar (2009AP171-OA)
Supreme Court denies review of Keller case against State Bar, by Jack Zemlicka, Wisconsin Law Journal, June 23, 2009

Decision in 'State v. Baron' 2009 WI 58

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2007AP1289-CR) affirming the Court of Appeals, 2008 WI App 90. See Argument.
Opinion by Justice Ziegler
Concurrence by Justice Bradley
Concurrence by Justice Prosser
Chief Justice Abrahamson did not participate

Stealing public official’s email to injure his reputation not protected by First Amendment, Wisconsin Supreme Court holds, by Alex De Grand, State Bar of Wisconsin, June 23, 2009

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Identity Theft Charge Against Christopher Baron: Court Rules that Wisconsin Identity Theft Law Does Not Violate the First Amendment, Wisconsin Department of Justice press release, June 23, 2009 (via The Wheeler Report)

Decision in 'State v. Johnson' 2009 WI 57

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2007AP1114-CR and 2007AP1115-CR) affirming the Court of Appeals, 2008 WI App 34. See Argument.
Opinion by Justice Prosser
Concurrence by Justice Prosser
Concurrence by Justice Ziegler, with Justices Roggensack and Gableman

Credit denied on concurrent sentences, by David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal, June 25, 2009

Wisconsin Supreme Court clarifies the basis to award jail credit in sentencing, by Alex De Grand, State Bar of Wisconsin, June 24, 2009

Appellate opinions week of June 22, 2009

Wisconsin Supreme Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Decision in 'Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Hansen' 2009 WI 56

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2008AP804-D) accepting the referee's findings except suspending for nine months rather than six months.
Opinion Per Curiam

Order on prosecutor's duty re: post-conviction exculpatory evidence, 2009 WI 55

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued an order [html | pdf] amending SCR 20:3.8 effective July 1, 2009. See Court debates extent of prosecutor’s duty to explore evidence of wrongful conviction. In the matter of amendment of Supreme Court Rules Chapter 20, Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (08-24)

Order amends IOP IV.A. to refer to GAB, 2009 WI 54

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on June 17, 2009 issued this order [html | pdf] effective immediately. In the matter of Amendment of the Supreme Court Internal Operating Procedures (09-04)

Decision in 'PRN Associates LLC v. Department of Administration' 2009 WI 53

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on June 17, 2009 issued its decision in this case (2007AP476 and 2007AP751) affirming the Court of Appeals, 2008 WI App 103. See Argument.
Opinion by Justice Bradley for a unanimous court


Injunction necessary to preserve losing bidder’s suit, Wisconsin Supreme Court says, by Alex De Grand, State Bar of Wisconsin, June 19, 2009


Supreme Court upholds dismissal of UWM building lawsuit, by Marie Rohde, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Posted: Jun. 17, 2009 (via The Wheeler Report)

Decision in 'Kenosha Professional Firefighters v. Kenosha' 2009 WI 52

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on June 17, 2009 issued its decision in this case (2007AP1198) reversing the summary dismissal by the Court of Appeals. See Argument.
Opinion by Chief Justice Abrahamson, with Justice Bradley, Crooks, and Prosser
Concurrence by Justice Roggensack, with Justice Ziegler, and Gableman

Appeal of attorney fees order subject to ‘finality’ requirements, supreme court says, by Alex De Grand, State Bar of Wisconsin, June 23, 2009

Decision in 'Baldwin-Woodville Area School Dist. v. West Central Education Assoc.' 2009 WI 51

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on June 17, 2009 issued its decision in this case (2008AP519) reversing the Court of Appeals. See Argument.
Opinion by Justice Bradley, with Chief Justice Abrahamson, and Justice Crooks, Roggensack, Ziegler, Gableman
Dissent by Justice Prosser


Arbitration award of teacher’s back pay reinstated by Wisconsin Supreme Court, by Alex De Grand, State Bar of Wisconsin, June 17, 2009

Decision in 'State v. Ferguson' 2009 WI 50

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on June 16, 2009 issued its decision in this case (2007AP2095-CR) reversing the Court of Appeals. See Argument.
Opinion by Justice Roggensack, with Justices Prosser, Ziegler, and Gableman
Concurrence by Justice Crooks, with Chief Justice Abrahamson, and Justice Bradley
Concurrence by Justice Bradley, with Chief Justice Abrahamson, and Justice Crooks

‘Jailable’ offense allows entry, by David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal, June 18, 2009

Warrantless arrest of suspect at home ok under exigency if offense punishable by jail, Wisconsin Supreme Court says, by Alex De Grand, State Bar of Wisconsin, June 18, 2009

Supreme Court quotes of the day, by Tom Foley, Illusory Tenant, June 16, 2009 @ 19:36

Decision in 'State v. Lange' 2009 WI 49

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on June 16, 2009 issued its decision in this case (2008AP882-CR) reversing the Court of Appeals. See Argument.
Opinion by Chief Justice Abrahamson, with Justices Bradley, Crooks, and Prosser
Concurrence by Justice Ziegler, with Justices Roggensack, and Gableman

Decision in 'Ho-Chunk Nation v. Department of Revenue' 2009 WI 48

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on June 16, 2009 issued its decision in this case (2007AP1985) affirming the Court of Appeals, 2008 WI App 95. See Argument.
Opinion by Justice Crooks, with Justices Roggensack, Ziegler, and Gableman
Dissent by Justice Prosser, with Chief Justice Abrahamson, and Justice Bradley


Indian tribe not entitled to partial refund of state cigarette tax, Wisconsin Supreme Court holds, by Alex De Grand, State Bar of Wisconsin, June 17, 2009


Court nixes Ho-Chunk's bid for cigarette tax refund, Associated Press, The Capital Times, 6/16/2009 11:53 am (via WisPolitics)

Decision in 'Werner v. Hendree' District 2

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals on June 17, 2009 issued its decision in this case (2008AP2045) dismissing the appeal from the Circuit Court. Recommended for publication.

Court denies woman's bid to seek damages from state, by Jacqui Seibel, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Posted: June 17, 2009

Supreme Court pending cases June 17, 2009

The Wisconsin Supreme Court posted an updated Table of Pending Cases [html | pdf] adding:


State v. Jensen (2008AP552-CR) June 16, 2009 granted review of the Court of Appeals, 2009 WI App 26

Do the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12), governing transfer of venue, apply where the duties the defendant had been charged with violating in his capacity as a public officer were found in various places, including the elections and ethics statutes?

Supreme Court grants review of Jensen venue appeal, by Greg Bump, WisPolitics, 6/17/2009


Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District (2008AP967-AC) June 16, 2009 accepted certification from the Court of Appeals

Are the personal e-mails of public employees that are maintained on publicly owned computers “records” under Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2) [the public records law]?

Even if the personal e-mails of public employees maintained on publicly owned computers are “records” under the public records law, is the presumption favoring disclosure of public records overcome by the public interest in protecting the privacy and reputational rights of citizens?

Supreme Court to decide public records case, Associated Press, June 23, 2009 7:17 AM EDT (via WisPolitics)

State Supreme Court to consider Rapids School District e-mail case, by Karen Madden, Stevens Point Journal, June 19, 2009 (via The Wheeler Report)

Oh, Say Can You Sing It?

Michael Kinsley in last Friday's Washington Post with an op-ed staple, replacing The Star-Spangled Banner as the national anthem because singing it is hard.

Circumstances lead, last fall, to me and two other Americans providing an a cappella rendition at the request of a class of grade school students in Paita, Peru. I wouldn't change a thing.

(via Paul Zummo at Southern Appeal)

Appellate opinions week of June 15, 2009

Wisconsin Supreme Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Holmes' dissent in Lochner

Thomas A. Bowden discusses Justice Holmes' dissent in Lochner v. New York at The Objective Standard:

"Ayn Rand once observed that Justice Holmes 'has had the worst philosophical influence on American law.' The nihilistic impact of his Lochner dissent alone is enough to justify her claim. But it is not too late for a new generation of jurists to target that influence for elimination, by embarking upon the mission that Holmes and his brethren should have undertaken a century ago."

Blushing Our Way Past Historical Fact and Fiction:

Blushing Our Way Past Historical Fact and Fiction: A Response to Professor Geoffrey R. Stone's Melville B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture and Essay, by Seth Barrett Tillman, Penn State Law Review, Vol. 114, pp. 1-22, 2009

From the Abstract

What follows is substantive discussion of the Attestation Clause, the Oaths and Affirmations Clause, the Sundays Excepted Clause, the Religious Test Clause, and a critique of Stone's use of historical materials, particularly his claim in regard to a book burning at Harvard circa 1789.

GO TEAM! Wisconsin’s latest recreational immunity controversy

Jacques C. Condon in Wisconsin Lawyer, June 2009, on the Decision in 'Noffke v. Bakke' 2009 WI 10.

Son Not Covered Under Father's Business Auto Policy

by Steven Snedeker, Hills Legal Group, Ltd, Waukesha, and republished with permission.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court found that a father’s business auto policy did not provide underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for his son. See Decision in 'Lisowski v. Hastings Mutual Insurance Company' 2009 WI 11. The plaintiff, Jonathan, sought UIM coverage under a business auto policy issued to his father, Dennis. The injured plaintiff was not the named insured and the vehicle was not listed in the business policy.

The Lisowskis owned multiple personal and business vehicles insured under policies with several companies. The father owned a Chevy Lumina, a Chevy pick-up, a Dodge Avenger and a Mack semi-tractor. Policies for the Chevy Lumina and pick-up were obtained, but had lapsed at the time of the accident. The Dodge Avenger was purchased for Jonathan. Jonathan personally insured the car through Progressive Northern Insurance Company, but he did not purchase UIM coverage with that policy. The Mack was used exclusively for farming and was covered by a Hastings business auto policy which included a UIM endorsement.

At the time of the accident, Jonathan was a passenger in his Dodge Avenger which was being driven by a friend. Jonathan sought UIM coverage under the Hastings policy as a family member of the named insured. Hastings denied coverage on the basis that the UIM policy applied to only covered autos. The trial court found in favor of Hastings and dismissed the complaint.

Initially, the appellate court certified the appeal to the supreme court. The supreme court declined review. In an unpublished decision, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. The supreme court then accepted review.

The high court framed the issue as turning on the language of the policy’s declarations page and the language of the endorsement for UIM coverage. On the declarations page, Item One listed Dennis Lisowski as the named insured. Item Two, the Schedule of Coverages for Covered Autos, stated that, “Each of these coverages will apply only to those ‘autos’ shown as covered ‘autos’. The business coverage form stated that “any auto” meant “Specifically Described ‘Autos’.” This is further defined as “[o]nly those ‘autos’ described in Item Three of the Declarations for which a premium charge is shown. . . “ Item Three of the declarations contained the “Schedule of Covered Autos You Own” which only listed the Mack.

There was no dispute that Jonathan, as a family member, was an insured under the father’s business auto policy. Hastings argued that the “for a covered auto” language was a part of the policy and under that language the Dodge Avenger was not a covered auto to which the UIM endorsement applied.

Wisconsin §632.32(5)(j) permits insurers to exclude coverage:

A policy may provide that any coverage under the policy does not apply to a loss resulting from the use of a motor vehicle that meets all of the following conditions:

1) Is owned by the named insured, or is owned by the named insured’s spouse or a relative of the named insured if the spouse or relative resides in the same household as the named insured.
2) Is not described in the policy under which the claim is made.
3) Is not covered under the terms of the policy as a newly acquired or replacement motor vehicle.

The business coverage form explicitly limited coverage to “Specifically Described ‘Autos’.” The court found that this was an economic decision made by the father when he bought the Hastings policy. Other levels of coverage were available which provided coverage for any autos owned by the policy holder.

The court held that the “for a covered auto” language on which the case hinged was substantive language and that when the provisions of the policy were read together, the language was not ambiguous. It found that Crandall v. Society Insurance, 2004 WI App 34, 269 Wis. 2d 765, 676 N.W.2d 174 controlled the outcome. Similar to Crandall, this case presented a UIM endorsement of a business auto policy and involved an injured party who was not the named insured, a driver who was not an insured under the policy and a vehicle not listed in the policy. Even if the “covered auto” language were to be characterized as an exclusion, the court found that it was valid because the conditions of §632.32 were satisfied.

Judicial video games

Our Courts: 21st Century Civics offers

Our Courts virtual world, in which you play a Guardian of Law, spreading the rule of law to a fictional world.

Coming soon: Do I Have a Right?

This short game will teach students that they have important rights grounded in the specific Amendments to the Constitution.

and Supreme Decision: Freedom of Speech

In this game, students will work for a Justice of the Supreme Court. ... If they demonstrate good reasoning, students earn the chance to write the majority opinion for the Supreme Court.

(via Wisconsin Court System Headlines)

Maintaining nuisance claim is time barred

Not sure how an action for maintaining a current nuisance could be barred by a statute of repose applicable only to improvements to real property? Me too.

Lawyer-Legislator Q&A: Representative Mark Gundrum (Assembly District 84)

At WisBar, June 10, 2009

What would you identify as the major issues/challenges facing the justice system?

In recent years, there has been increased activity by the Wisconsin Supreme Court usurping the role of the Legislature, not only through legal decisions, but also rules promulgated by the Court. I think this is a concern and that the court system needs to be restrained and focused on the role of the courts, rather than giving in to the temptation to legislate from the bench.

Decision in 'State v. Grady' 2009 WI 47

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2007AP672-CR) affirming the Court of Appeals summary decision. See Argument.
Opinion by Justice Gableman for a unanimous court

¶3 ... In this case, we hold that Grady was not entitled to a readministration of the Miranda warnings after he was arrested. The evidence shows that Grady was read his Miranda warnings only two-and-one-half hours prior to the commencement of the custodial portion of his interrogation, there was no significant change in the nature of his interrogation after it became custodial, Grady showed no signs of mental impairment, he was familiar with Miranda warnings from his past, and, though not readministered, Grady was reminded of his Miranda rights after he was taken into custody. ...

Court rejects bright-line custodial rule: Pre-custodial Miranda warnings effective, by David Ziemer, June 16, 2009


Validity of Miranda warnings judged by totality of circumstances, by Alex De Grand, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin, June 12, 2009

Decision in 'State ex rel. Robins v. Madden' 2009 WI 46

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2007AP1526-W) affirming the Court of Appeals refusal to issue a writ of mandamus.
Opinion by Justice Gableman for a unanimous court

¶2 The issue we address today is whether the judge in a John Doe hearing is required under Wis. Stat. § 968.26 to examine all the witnesses a complainant produces and to issue subpoenas to all the witnesses a complainant wishes to produce. We read the statute as extending judicial discretion in a John Doe hearing not only to the scope of a witness's examination, but also to whether a witness need testify at all. Accordingly, we hold that a judge is not required by § 968.26 to examine all the witnesses a complainant produces at a John Doe hearing, or to subpoena all the witnesses a complainant wishes to produce. ...

Chief Justice Abrahamson did not participate.

See Argument in 'State ex rel. Robins v. Madden'


Judge has discretion to call no witnesses at John Doe hearing, Wisconsin Supreme Court holds, by Alex De Grand, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin, June 12, 2009

A Questionable Taking in Milwaukee

Illya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy on reported plans by the City of Milwaukee to take two commercial lots from one developer to sell to another.

Wisconsin is one of many states that has passed post-Kelo reform laws that purport to constrain these sorts of abuses, but actually provide little or no real protection for property owners. ... As is typical of many such statutes, Wisconsin's new law defines "blight" so broadly that virtually any area can be declared blighted if the local government wants to take property located there. ...

Takings were the topic of our chapter event, Thomas W. Merrill "What to Do About Eminent Domain Abuse" May 18, 2005.

A little love from the left

"For example, who covers the State courts better, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, or Terrence Berres. There's no contest."

Decision in 'Krier v. Vilione' 2009 WI 45

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2006AP1573 and 2006AP2290) reversing the Court of Appeals, 2007 WI App 235.
Opinion by Justice Ziegler, with Justices Crooks, Prosser, Roggensack, and Gableman

¶44 In order for an accountant to bear responsibility to a third party, the third party must have done something to its detriment based upon the accountant's information. Here, there is no such claim that the plaintiffs took action in reliance on information provided by the accountants. The plaintiffs do not claim that they relied on the accountants' inaccurate work product and as a result, loaned money to the other corporations or took action to their detriment.

¶52 ... The plaintiffs claim that they would have ceased doing business with EOG Environmental had they known of the misappropriations and that the accountants shirked their responsibility in not warning them of the misappropriations. However, the plaintiffs contracted to do business with EOG Environmental for two years after knowing about the misappropriations. ...

Dissent by Justice Bradley, with Chief Justice Abrahamson

¶90 ...the majority states: "The complaint alleges that had the accountants informed the plaintiffs of the misappropriations, they would have ceased doing business with EOG Environmental." [citation omitted]

¶91 Nowhere in the complaint can you find the allegation as misstated by the majority. Instead the allegation the majority apparently relies upon provides that he would have discontinued his partnership with Michael Vilione...

¶92 Indeed, that is exactly what Krier did in 2002 after he found out about the misappropriations. He discontinued associating "with Michael Vilione as a business partner." ...

¶99 As Chief Justice John Roberts has stated, a judge's job is like an umpire's--"to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."[footnote omitted]

See Argument in 'Krier v. Vilione'


Former shareholder cannot sue, by by David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal, June 11, 2009


One business harmed by wrongdoing at another corporation cannot sue, Wisconsin Supreme Court says, by Alex De Grand, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin, June 11, 2009

Decision in 'Nedvidek v. Kuipers' 2009 WI 44

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2006AP3075) dismissing as improvidently granted review of the Court of Appeals.
Opinion Per Curiam

¶4 Plaintiffs, as members of La Crosse area veterans' groups, sued ... to void the [UW La Crosse] chancellors' change in the name of the stadium and to rename it the Veterans Memorial Stadium. The circuit court and court of appeals dismissed these claims on mootness and standing grounds. We now dismiss the petition for review as improvidently granted, because the issues for which we took the case do not present any novel questions or lead to the development of the law.

Justice Bradley did not participate.

See Argument in 'Nedvidek v. Kuipers'