Case ID: wis-2d_270/html/0055-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Steven H. Hoyme, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Janice S. Brakken, Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner.
    
    Supreme Court
    
      No. 02-1790.
    
    
      Oral argument March 10, 2004.
    
      Decided March 25, 2004.
    
    2004 WI 26
    (Also reported in 677 N.W.2d 233.)
    For the respondent-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Donald R. Fraker and Fraker Law Firm, S.C., Mequon, and oral argument by Donald R. Fraker.
    
    For the petitioner-respondent there was a brief by Janis M. Burgess and Wesley W. Hoffman & Associates, EC., Menominee, MI, and oral argument by Janis M. Burgess.
    
    
      
       Motion for reconsideration denied 5-13-04.
    
   PER CURIAM.

¶ 1. The court is equally divided on the question of whether the decision of the court of appeals, Hoyme v. Brakken, No. 02-1790, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. July 22, 2003), should be affirmed or reversed.

Justice JON E WILCOX, Justice N. PATRICK CROOKS, and Justice DAVID T. PROSSER would affirm; Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAM-SON, Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY, and Justice PATIENCE D. ROGGENSACK would reverse. Justice DIANE S. SYKES did not participate.

¶ 2. Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.