Case Title: Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce v. Tony Evers

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2023-01-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
2023 WI 5
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  2020AP2081-AC & 2020AP2109-AC 
 
 
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Muskego 
Area Chamber of Commerce and New Berlin Chamber 
of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, 
 
          Plaintiffs-Respondents-Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Tony Evers, in his official capacity as 
Governor of Wisconsin, Karen Timberlake, in her 
official capacity as Interim Secretary of the 
Wisconsin Department of Health Services and 
Joel Brennan, in his official capacity as 
Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of 
Administration, 
 
          Defendants, 
 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 
 
          Intervenor-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
JAN 23, 2023 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date:
¶1 
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce filed a motion for 
reconsideration of our decision in Wisconsin Manufacturers & 
Commerce v. Evers, 2022 WI 38, 401 Wis. 2d 699, 974 N.W.2d 753.  
The State Defendants and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel opposed 
WMC's motion.  We deny the motion for reconsideration without 
costs.   
No.  2020AP2081-AC & 2020AP2109-AC 
2 
¶2 
We nevertheless file this memorandum on the motion to 
address one of WMC's arguments, namely that this Court should 
clarify that footnote 9 of the court of appeals' decision has no 
precedential value.  See Wis. Mfrs. & Commerce v. Evers, 2021 WI 
App 35, ¶24 n.9, 398 Wis. 2d 164, 960 N.W.2d 442; see also Wis. 
Sup. Ct. IOP III.J ("A motion for reconsideration may result in 
the court's issuing a corrective or explanatory memorandum to its 
opinion without changing the original mandate.").  We conclude 
that, in this case, footnote 9 of the court of appeals' decision 
has no precedential value.  We leave for another day the issue of 
whether the rule from Blum v. 1st Auto & Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WI 
78, ¶46, 326 Wis. 2d 729, 786 N.W.2d 78, that "[u]nless this court 
explicitly states otherwise, a court of appeals opinion overruled 
by this court no longer retains any precedential value," should be 
extended to cover the present situation.  See also Showers 
Appraisals, LLC v. Musson Bros., 2013 WI 79, ¶71 n.4, 350 
Wis. 2d 509, 835 N.W.2d 226 (Crooks, J., concurring).   
¶3 
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is 
denied without costs.   
 
 
 
No.  2020AP2081-AC & 2020AP2109-AC 
3