Opinion · Wisconsin Supreme Court

Douglas-Hanson Co., Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co.

Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 233 Wis. 2d 276 (Wis. 2000)

Type
Opinion
Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Wisconsin
Date
2000-03-10
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. ¶ 1. The court is equally divided on the question of whether the published decision of the court of appeals, Douglas-Hanson Co., Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co., 229 Wis. 2d 132, 598 N.W.2d 262 (Ct. App. 1999), should be affirmed or reversed. Chief Justice SHIRLEY S.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Douglas-Hanson Co., Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
22 opinions
DOUGLAS-HANSON CO., INC. v. BF GOODRICH CO.,2000 WI 22
233 Wis.2d 276,607 N.W.2d 621
DOUGLAS-HANSON COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v.
BF GOODRICH COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER.fn†
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Case No.: 98-1737.
Oral Argument: February 29, 2000.
Opinion Released: March 10, 2000.
Opinion Filed: March 10, 2000.
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.Affirmed.Reported at:229 Wis.2d 132,598 N.W.2d 262(Ct.App. 1999 — Published)

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for St. Croix County, SCOTT R. NEEDHAM, Judge.
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs byEric J. Magnuson, John B. Lunseth IIandRider, Bennett, EganArundel, LLP, Minneapolis, andDaniel W. HildebrandandDeWittRoss Stevens, Madison, and oral argument byDaniel W. Hildebrand.Page 277

For the plaintiff-respondent there was a brief byMichael R. Gray,Scott S. PayzantandMackall, Crounse Moore, PLC, Minneapolis, and oral argument byScott S. Payzant.
¶ 1. PER CURIAM.
The court is equally divided on the question of whether the published decision of the court of appeals,
Douglas-Hanson Co.,
Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co.
, No. 98-1737 (June 29, 1999), should be affirmed or reversed. Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY, and Justice DAVID T. PROSSER would affirm; Justice WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, Justice N. PATRICK CROOKS, and Justice DIANE S. SYKES would reverse. Justice JON P. WILCOX did not participate.

¶ 2. Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.Page 278
  1. Motion for reconsideration denied April 27, 2000. ↩