Opinion · Wisconsin Supreme Court

Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle

270 Wis. 2d 267

Type
Opinion
Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Wisconsin
Date
2004-03-30
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. ¶ 1. This case comes before the court on certification from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District IV ¶ 2. The court is equally divided on whether to affirm the judgment of the circuit court. Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, and Justice N.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
10 opinions
DAIRYLAND GREYHOUND PARK, INC. v. DOYLE,2004 WI 34
270 Wis.2d 267,677 N.W.2d 275
Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant v. James E. Doyle, in
his official capacity as Governor of the State of Wisconsin, and. Marc J.
Marotta, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department
of Administration, Defendants-Respondents.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
No. 03-0421.
Oral Argument: January 27, 2004.
Opinion Filed: March 30, 2004.
Page 268
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dane County, Richard J. Callaway, Judge.Certification vacated. Cause remanded to the court of appeals.(L.C. No. 01 CV 2906).

ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS.
For the plaintiff-appellant there were briefs byRonald R. Ragatz,Peter A. Peshek, Mindy Rowland BuengerandDeWitt, Ross Stevens,S.C., Madison, and oral argument byRonald R. Ragatz.

For the defendants-respondents the cause was argued byJohn S. Greene,Maura FJ Whelan, Charles D. Hoornstra, Thomas C. Bellavia, assistant attorneys general, with whom on the brief wasPeggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general.

An amicus curiae brief was filed byDouglas B.L. Endreson, William R.PerryandSonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson Perry, LLP, Washington, D.C.;Howard Bichler, Hertel;CarolBrownandBrown LaCounte, LLP, Madison;Jennifer L. NuttCarletonandOneida Law Office, Oneida;Douglas William Huck, Bowler;Rebecca R. Weise, Black River Falls;Kevin L. Osterbauer, Odanah;LarryLeventhalandLarry Leventhal Associates, Minneapolis, MN;Kris M.GoodwillandLac Courte Oreilles Legal Department, Hayward;Jeffrey A.Crawford, Milwaukee;Eric N. DahlstromandRothstein, Donatelli, Hughes,Dahlstrom, Schoenburg Frye, LLP, Tempe, AZ;David M.Page 269Ujke, Bayfield, on behalf of the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin, Ho-Chunk Nation, Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, and Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, and oral argument byDouglas B.L. Endreson.

An amicus brief was filed byBrady C. Williamson, James A. FriedmanandLaFollette, Godfrey Kahn, Madison, on behalf of Teamsters Local Union No. 344, Teamsters Local Union No. 200, Milwaukee Building Construction Trades Council, Professional Firefighters of Wisconsin, Inc., COA Youth and Family Centers, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, St. Ann Center for Intergenerational Care, Inc., Lutheran Special School, AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin, Inc., Milwaukee Urban League, and Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee.

An amicus curiae brief was filed byRaymond P. Taffora, Roisin H.Bell, Brian J. RybarikandMichael Best Friedrich, LLP, Madison, on behalf of Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce and Associated General Contractors-Greater Milwaukee.
¶ 1. PER CURIAM.
This case comes before the court on certification from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District IV.

¶ 2. The court is equally divided on whether to affirm the judgment of the circuit court. Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, and Justice N. Patrick Crooks would affirm. Justice David T.Page 270Prosser, Jr., Justice Diane S. Sykes, and Justice Patience D. Roggensack would reverse. Justice Jon P. Wilcox did not participate.

¶ 3. When a certification or bypass results in a tie vote by this court, the better course of action is to vacate our decision to accept certification or bypass and remand the cause to the court of appeals.
State v. Richard Knutson, Inc.
,191 Wis.2d 395,396-97,528 N.W.2d 430(1995) (remanding to court of appeals on a tie vote on certification);
State v. Elam
,195 Wis.2d 683,684-85,538 N.W.2d 249(1995) (restating rule but declining to remand to court of appeals on a tie vote on bypass because court of appeals had previously decided issue).

¶ 4. Accordingly, we vacate our order granting certification and remand to the court of appeals.By the Court.— The Order granting certification is vacated and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals.Page 271