Case Title: New Richmond News v. City of New Richmond

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2014AP001938

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2015-12-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
2015 WI 106 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP1938 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
New Richmond News and Steven Dzubay, 
          Plaintiffs-Respondents, 
     v. 
City of New Richmond, 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
PETITION TO BYPASS DENIED 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 18, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
September 18, 2015 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
St. Croix 
 
JUDGE: 
Howard W. Cameron, Jr. 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, A.W. BRADLEY, J.J., concur. (Opinion 
Filed) 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: R.G. BRADLEY, J., did not participate.    
 
 
 
 
For the defendant-appellant, there were briefs by Remzy D. 
Bitar, Timothy M. Johnson, Samantha R. Schmid, and Crivello 
Carlson, S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Remzy D. Bitar. 
 
For the plaintiff-respondents, there was a brief by Dustin 
B. Brown, Robert J. Dreps and Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Madison, and 
oral argument by Robert J. Dreps. 
 
There was an amicus curiae brief by Christa Westerberg and 
McGillivray Westerberg & Bender LLC, on behalf of the Wisconsin 
Newspaper Association and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of 
the Press. 
 
 
There was an amicus curiae brief by Andrew C. Cook, 
assistant attorney general, Delanie Breuer, assistant attorney 
general, with whom on the brief was Brad D. Schimel, attorney 
general, on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Justice. 
 
There was an amicus curiae brief by Claire Sliverman and 
League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Madison, and Andrew T. 
Phillips and von Briesen & Roper, S.C., Milwaukee, on behalf of 
League of Wisconsin Municipalities and Wisconsin Counties 
Association. 
 
There was an amicus curiae brief by Timothy M. Barber, 
Michael J. Modl, Gesina M. Seiler and Axley Brynelson, LLP, 
Madison, 
on 
behalf 
of 
Wisconsin 
County 
Mutual 
Insurance 
Corporation and Community Insurance Corporation. 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 106
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2014AP1938 
(L.C. No. 
2013CV163) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
New Richmond News and Steven Dzubay,   
 
 
Plaintiffs-Respondents,   
 
 
v. 
 
City of New Richmond,   
 
 
Defendant-Appellant.    
FILED 
 
DEC 18, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the Circuit Court 
for St. Croix County, Howard W. Cameron, Judge.  Decision to 
accept petition to bypass vacated and remanded. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  The court is equally divided on whether 
to affirm or reverse the judgment of the circuit court for 
St. Croix County.  This case was argued before the full court; 
however, Justice N. Patrick Crooks passed away prior to the 
court's decision.  Justice Rebecca G. Bradley was appointed to 
the court after the court's decision, and therefore did not 
participate.  Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice Ann Walsh 
Bradley, and Justice David T. Prosser would affirm.  Chief 
No. 
2014AP1938   
 
2 
 
Justice Patience Drake Roggensack, Justice Annette Kingsland 
Ziegler, and Justice Michael J. Gableman would reverse. 
¶2 
This court accepted jurisdiction over this appeal on a 
petition to bypass.  Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.60 (2013-14).  We 
have previously stated that when a tie vote occurs in this court 
on a bypass or certification, "justice is better served in such 
an instance by remanding to the court of appeals for their 
consideration." 
 
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); see also 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). 
¶3 
Accordingly, we vacate our order granting the petition 
to bypass and remand to the court of appeals. 
 
By the Court.—Decision to grant the petition to bypass 
vacated and cause remanded. 
¶4 
REBECCA G. BRADLEY, J., did not participate. 
 
   
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶5 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (concurring).  I concur in 
the per curiam opinion vacating the order granting the petition 
to bypass and remanding this case to the court of appeals.   
¶6 
I write separately to memorialize the approach being 
taken in the instant case following a new justice's (here 
Justice Rebecca G. Bradley's) appointment to the court, and to 
compare the practice at this time with past practice in this 
court and in the United States Supreme Court. 
¶7 
The per curiam looks regular in its form.1  The instant 
case differs, however, from past cases vacating the order 
granting the petition to bypass and remanding the case to the 
court of appeals.  The instant case poses the question of how a 
case should be treated by the court when the case was heard and 
decided before a new justice became a member of the court and 
the new member joins the court before an opinion is released.     
¶8 
To memorialize the approach now taken by the court in 
the instant case and to compare the present practice with this 
court's past practice and the practices of the United States 
Supreme Court, let me set forth the facts and circumstances of 
the change in the membership of the court, the status of the 
                                                 
1 See Attachment A for a list of per curiam opinions 
vacating orders granting certification or bypass and remanding 
to the court of appeals, in which the justices who voted to 
affirm or reverse are named. 
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
2 
 
cases heard in September and October, and the issues raised by a 
new justice's joining the court at this time.2 
¶9 
Justice N. Patrick Crooks passed away on September 21, 
2015.  Justice Rebecca G. Bradley joined the court on October 9, 
2015.   
¶10 Prior to September 21, 2015, the court heard oral 
argument in nine cases.  Justice N. Patrick Crooks participated.  
No opinion was released in each of these cases prior to Justice 
Rebecca G. Bradley's joining the court.  The nine cases are set 
forth in the attached oral argument schedule (Attachment B) 
released by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. 
¶11 In addition, after Justice N. Patrick Crooks passed 
away on September 21, 2015, and prior to Justice Rebecca G. 
Bradley's appointment, on September 22, October 5, and October 
6, 2015, the court heard oral argument in seven cases.  The 
seven cases are set forth in the attached oral argument schedule 
(Attachment C) released by the Clerk of the Supreme Court.  No 
opinion was released in any of these cases prior to Justice 
Rebecca G. Bradley's appointment to the court.  
¶12 One issue regarding the court's treatment of the 
instant case and other cases in which no opinion was released 
before Justice Rebecca G. Bradley became a member of the court 
                                                 
2 I am not writing about the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
lawyer discipline cases and petitions for review or bypass and 
certifications by the court of appeals.  These matters are too 
numerous and involve a large variety of factual patterns.  They 
do, however, present issues similar to those presented by the 
oral argument cases. 
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
3 
 
is whether the court or the new justice decides whether the new 
justice participates in the cases heard before the new justice 
joined the court.  No decision on this issue has been released.  
¶13 I turn to the instant case, New Richmond News v. City 
of New Richmond.  The instant case came to the court by way of a 
party's petition to bypass the court of appeals.  As the per 
curiam states, the court granted the petition.  The court was 
divided 3-3 after the passing of Justice N. Patrick Crooks.   
¶14 When a case resulting in a tie vote is before us on a 
certification or petition to bypass the court of appeals, the 
court ordinarily vacates the order granting certification or 
bypass and remands the case to the court of appeals.3  This is a 
                                                 
3 State v. Richard Knutson, Inc., 191 Wis. 2d 395, 396-97, 
528 N.W.2d 430 (1995).   
But see State v. Elam, 195 Wis. 2d 683, 684-85, 538 
N.W.2d 249 (1995), stating that:  
The court is equally divided on whether to affirm or 
reverse 
the 
judgment 
of 
the 
Circuit 
Court 
for 
Milwaukee County, Jeffrey A. Wagner, Judge.  Chief 
Justice Roland B. Day, Justices Donald W. Steinmetz 
and Janine P. Geske would affirm.  Justices Shirley S. 
Abrahamson, William A. Bablitch and Ann Walsh Bradley 
would reverse.  Justice Jon P. Wilcox did not 
participate.   
This court accepted jurisdiction over this appeal on a 
petition to bypass.  Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.60 (1993-
94).  We have previously stated that when a tie vote 
occurs in this court on a bypass or certification, 
"justice is better served in such an instance by 
remanding 
to 
the 
court 
of 
appeals 
for 
their 
consideration."  State v. Richard Knutson, Inc., 191 
Wis. 2d 395, 396-397, 528 N.W.2d 430 (1995). 
We do not remand this appeal to the court of appeals 
because the court of appeals has already decided the 
(continued) 
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
4 
 
sensible procedure.  No way exists for breaking the tie vote in 
this court, and remanding the case to the court of appeals gives 
the parties appellate review of the trial court's decision.    
¶15 Unlike those prior cases regarding a tie vote in a 
certification or bypass, in the instant case there is a way of 
breaking the tie vote in this court; Justice Rebecca G. Bradley 
could participate.  If Justice Rebecca G. Bradley participated 
in the instant case, the parties and the public could have a 
decision by this court more quickly than if the case were 
remanded to the court of appeals.  A decision by this court 
would also avoid the possibility of further review by this court 
following the decision by the court of appeals.4   
                                                                                                                                                             
issue presented in this appeal, namely whether Wis. 
Stat. § 973.012 (1993-94) prohibits a defendant from 
basing an appeal on a sentencing court's failure to 
take sentencing guidelines into consideration.  In 
State 
v. 
Halbert, 
147 
Wis. 2d 123, 
131-32, 
432 
N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1988), the court of appeals held 
that a sentencing court's failure to consider the 
sentencing guidelines is not subject to appellate 
review.   
4 Several of the cases the court sent to the court of 
appeals after a tied vote came back to this court after a 
decision of the court of appeals.  See, e.g., Polsky v. Virnich, 
2009 WI 66, ¶1, 318 Wis. 2d 599, 769 N.W.2d 52 (returned to the 
court in 2011 and decided in Polsky v. Virnich, 2011 WI 13, ¶1, 
332 Wis. 2d 1, 800 N.W.2d 742 (court remained evenly divided)); 
Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, 2004 WI 34, ¶¶2, 4, 270 
Wis. 2d 267, 677 N.W.2d 275 (recertified by the court of appeals 
and decided by this court in Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. 
Doyle, 2006 WI 107, 295 Wis. 2d 1, 719 N.W.2d 408); Wenke v. 
Gehl Co., 2003 WI 96, ¶1, 263 Wis. 2d 675, 665 N.W.2d 211 
(returned to this court for review of the court of appeals' 
decision in Wenke v. Gehl Co., 2004 WI 103, 274 Wis. 2d 220, 682 
N.W.2d 405); State v. Watson, 209 Wis. 2d 281, 282-83, 562 
N.W.2d 151 (1997) (returned to this court for review of the 
(continued) 
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
5 
 
¶16 The per curiam explains Justice Rebecca G. Bradley's 
non-participation in the instant case as follows: "This case was 
argued before the full court; however, Justice N. Patrick Crooks 
passed away prior to the court's decision.  Justice Rebecca G. 
Bradley was appointed to the court after the court's decision, 
and therefore did not participate."5  All court decisions are 
tentative until the opinion is released.      
¶17 To put the present situation into focus, I look to the 
prior practice of this court and the United States Supreme 
Court.  Under past precedent of this court and the United States 
Supreme Court, it appears that if a new justice is available to 
break a tie vote, then the court, without the new justice's 
input, decides whether to reargue the case.  In reargument, the 
new justice participates.   
¶18 Although this court has not had much experience with a 
new justice joining the court after a case has been heard but 
before an opinion is released, we have had some.   
¶19 The circumstances surrounding my arrival on the court 
in September 1976 are instructive.   
¶20 Chief Justice Horace Wilkie passed away on May 26, 
1976.  I was appointed by the governor in August 1976 and was 
sworn in on September 7, 1976.  Two cases that had been heard 
                                                                                                                                                             
court of appeals decision in State v. Watson, 227 Wis. 2d 167, 
595 N.W.2d 403 (1999)). 
5 Per curiam, ¶1.  Justice Rebecca G. Bradley did not 
participate in the court's decision in State v. Iverson, 2015 WI 
101, ¶62, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, heard before Justice 
Rebecca G. Bradley joined the court.   
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
6 
 
before Chief Justice Wilkie's death resulted in a tie after his 
death:  Punches v. Schmidt, 73 Wis. 2d 206, 243 N.W.2d 518 
(1976); and State v. Kline, 73 Wis. 2d 337, 243 N.W.2d 519 
(1976).  In each case, the court issued a per curiam opinion on 
June 30, 1976, stating how each justice had voted and further 
stating that because the court was equally divided following the 
passing of Chief Justice Wilkie, the judgment of the trial court 
was affirmed.  Because I had not yet taken office, nobody was 
available to break the tie.  The justices who heard the cases 
obviously decided not to hold the cases over until September 
when a new justice would, in all likelihood, participate.   
¶21 A third case that was affected by the death of Chief 
Justice Wilkie was Buse v. Smith, 74 Wis. 2d 550, 247 N.W.2d 141 
(1976).  Buse was an original action that was argued on May 5, 
1976.  No decision was announced and no opinion was released 
before Chief Justice Wilkie died on May 26.  There was no trial 
court decision to affirm.  No court of appeals existed at the 
time.   
¶22 To resolve Buse, the court, sitting six (and without 
my input), set Buse for reargument on September 8, 1976, when a 
seven-person court would in all likelihood be sitting.  After I 
was sworn in, a seven-member court, including me, sat for 
reargument and decided the case.  An opinion was issued on 
November 30, 1976.   
¶23 I turn to the procedures followed by the United States 
Supreme Court when a change in the membership of the Court 
occurs.  These procedures are instructive as well.   
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
7 
 
¶24 The practices followed by the United States Supreme 
Court when a new justice joins the court are set forth in 
Stephen M. Shapiro et al., Supreme Court Practice, Ch. 15.6, at 
838-39 (10th ed. 2013).  The practice of the United States 
Supreme 
Court 
is 
that 
only 
the 
justices 
who 
originally 
participated in a case decide how the case should be handled 
when a new justice joins the court.  If the justices who 
originally participated in the case decide that the new justice 
should have an opportunity to participate, they set the case for 
reargument.  If the case is set for reargument, the new justice 
may participate in the reargument.  No precedent appears to 
exist in the United States Supreme Court for a new justice who 
did not participate in oral argument to participate in the case 
without reargument.6   
¶25 Here is the relevant discussion from the Shapiro text:  
The normal practice is for any Justices who did not 
participate in the original decision to disqualify 
themselves in considering the petition for rehearing.  
Thus, Justice Stewart, who had not been a member of 
the Court when Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 
(1958), was decided, took no part in the subsequent 
request for a response to the petition for rehearing 
(358 U.S. 871 (1958)) or in the order granting 
                                                 
6 At least one case suggests that an equally divided United 
States Supreme Court alone is not a sufficient reason to grant a 
reargument.  Rather, reargument may be warranted only when 
important constitutional questions are involved.  See City of 
Shreveport v. Holmes, 125 U.S. 694 (1888) ("These petitions are 
denied.  The rehearing was granted in Insurance Co. v. New York, 
119 U.S. 129, ante, 1385, after a decision by a divided court, 
because an important constitutional question was involved.  The 
questions in these cases are not of that character.") (emphasis 
added).   
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
8 
 
rehearing (360 U.S. 922 (1959)), but did participate 
in the reargument (362 U.S. 145 (1960)).  See also 
Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 349 
U.S. 901, 926 (1955), 350 U.S. 124 (1956); Indian 
Towing Co. v. United States, 349 U.S. 902, 926, 350 
U.S. 61 (1955).   
Despite the above limitations, rehearing petitions 
have been granted in the past where the prior decision 
was by an equally divided Court and it appeared likely 
that upon reargument a majority one way or the other 
might be mustered.  This means that a Justice who 
originally 
participated 
voted 
for 
rehearing 
in 
recognition of the importance of the Court's resolving 
the question upon which it had divided.  This was 
particularly true when a new Justice became available 
to break the tie.  The same practice still prevails, 
especially when a new Justice makes a majority 
possible.22  In such cases, the new Justice does not 
participate in the consideration of the petition for 
rehearing but does take part in the reargument and the 
ensuing judgment.  
When the equal division has resulted from the failure 
of a member of the Court to participate for personal 
reasons, and the petition for rehearing will not 
result in his or her participation, the mere fact of 
the equal division will not cause the petition to be 
granted, although it may be granted for other reasons.  
But in Bartkus v. Illinois, 355 U.S. 281, 356 U.S. 969 
(1958), 359 U.S. 121 (1959), and in Ladner v. United 
States, 355 U.S. 282, 356 U.S. 969, 358 U.S. 169 
(1958), Justice Brennan did not participate in the 
affirmances by equal divisions; he had been a member 
of the court below in Hoag v. New Jersey, 356 U.S. 464 
(1958), a companion case argued at the same time.  
Once 
the 
Hoag 
case 
was 
decided, 
however, 
he 
participated in the orders granting rehearing in 
Bartkus and Ladner and in the subsequent rearguments 
and opinions in those cases. 
 
. . . . 
22 [T]he Court on its own initiative restored three 
cases to the calendar for reargument during the 2005 
Term. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 546 U.S. 1162 (2005); 
Kansas v. Marsh, 547 U.S. 1037 (2005); Hudson v. 
Michigan, 547 U.S. 1096 (2005).  Each of these cases 
originally had been argued between the death of Chief 
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
9 
 
Justice Rehnquist on September 3, 2005, and the 
swearing-in of Justice Alito on February 1, 2006.  
Presumably, the Court restored these cases to the 
calendar because an equally divided vote had resulted; 
the opinions ultimately issued in these three cases 
all were split 5-4, with the majority vote in each 
case including Justice Alito.  See Garcetti v. 
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2005); Hudson v. Michigan, 547 
U.S. 586 (2006); Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006); 
see also Ryan Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Corp., 349 U.S. 901, 
926 (1955); Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 349 
U.S. 902, 926 (1955).    
Id., 838-39 & n.22 (emphasis added; footnote 22 shown; other 
footnotes omitted).  
¶26 In sum, under past precedent of this court and the 
United States Supreme Court, it appears that if a new justice is 
available to break a tie vote, then the court, without the new 
justice's input, decides whether to reargue the case.  In 
reargument, the new justice participates.   
¶27 Although the per curiam does not appear to be 
consistent with this past practice, this court appears to have 
adopted a new practice.  I therefore concur in the decision to 
vacate the order granting the petition to bypass and remand this 
matter to the court of appeals.   
¶28 To aid the court in the future, I write separately to 
memorialize the practice adopted by the court at this time and 
to describe the past practice of this court and the practices of 
the United State Supreme Court.   
 
¶29 For the reasons set forth, I write separately.   
¶30 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this opinion. 
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
10 
 
 
ATTACHMENT A 
1. 
Metro. Milwaukee Ass'n of Commerce, Inc. v. City 
of 
Milwaukee, 
2010 
WI 
122, 
¶¶1, 
3, 
329 
Wis. 2d 537, 
789 
N.W.2d 734 
("The 
court 
is 
equally divided whether to affirm or reverse the 
order of the circuit court.  Justice David T. 
Prosser, Justice Patience Drake Roggensack, and 
Justice Michael J. Gableman would affirm.  Chief 
Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice Ann Walsh 
Bradley, and Justice N. Patrick Crooks would 
reverse. Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler did 
not 
participate. . . . [W]e 
vacate 
our 
order 
granting certification and remand to the court of 
appeals.").   
2. 
Wis. Realtors Ass'n, Inc. v. Town of W. Point, 
2007 
WI 
139, 
¶¶2, 
4, 
306 
Wis. 2d 42, 
743 
N.W.2d 441 ("The court is equally divided on 
whether to affirm or reverse the judgment of the 
circuit 
court. 
 
Chief 
Justice 
Shirley 
S. 
Abrahamson, 
Justice 
Ann 
Walsh 
Bradley, 
and 
Justice Patience Drake Roggensack would affirm.  
Justice N. Patrick Crooks, Justice David T. 
Prosser, and Justice Louis B. Butler, Jr. would 
reverse on the grounds that neither Wis. Stat. 
§ 236.45 nor Wis. Stat. § 61.34 provide the Town 
the authority to enact a moratorium on land 
division.  Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler did 
not 
participate. . . . [W]e 
vacate 
our 
order 
granting certification and remand to the court of 
appeals").  
3. 
Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, 2004 WI 
34, ¶¶2, 4, 270 Wis. 2d 267, 677 N.W.2d 275 ("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. Prosser, Jr., Justice Diane S. 
Sykes, and Justice Patience D. Roggensack would 
reverse. 
 
Justice 
Jon 
P. 
Wilcox 
did 
not 
participate. . . . [W]e vacate our order granting 
certification 
and 
remand 
to 
the 
court 
of 
appeals.").  
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
11 
 
4. 
State v. Agnello, 2003 WI 44, ¶¶1, 3, 261 
Wis. 2d 331, 664 N.W.2d 55 ("The court is equally 
divided on whether to affirm or reverse the 
judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee 
County. Justice William A. Bablitch, Justice Jon 
P. Wilcox, and Justice N. Patrick Crooks would 
affirm.  Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, 
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, and Justice David T. 
Prosser would reverse.  Justice Diane S. Sykes 
did not participate. . . . [W]e vacate our order 
granting certification and remand to the court of 
appeals.").  
5. 
Wenke 
v. 
Gehl 
Co., 
2003 
WI 
96, 
¶1, 
263 
Wis. 2d 675, 
665 
N.W.2d 211 
("The 
court 
is 
equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse 
the judgment of the circuit court. Justice N. 
Patrick Crooks, Justice David T. Prosser, Jr., 
and Justice Diane S. Sykes would affirm. Chief 
Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice William A. 
Bablitch, and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley would 
reverse. 
Justice 
Jon 
P. 
Wilcox 
did 
not 
participate."). 
6. 
State 
v. 
Greer, 
2003 
WI 
20, 
¶¶1, 
3, 
260 
Wis. 2d 43, 658 N.W.2d 795 ("The court is equally 
divided on whether to affirm or reverse the 
judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee 
County.  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. . . . [W]e vacate our 
order granting certification and remand to the 
court of appeals.").  
7. 
Guzman v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 34, 
¶¶1, 3, 234 Wis. 2d 170, 609 N.W.2d 166 ("The 
court is equally divided on whether to affirm or 
reverse the order of the circuit court for 
Milwaukee County.  Chief Justice Abrahamson, 
Justices 
Bablitch 
and 
Bradley 
would 
affirm.  
Justices Wilcox, Crooks and Sykes would reverse.  
Justice Prosser did not participate. . . . [W]e 
vacate our order granting bypass and remand to 
the court of appeals."). 
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
12 
 
8. 
State v. Deborah J.Z., 225 Wis. 2d 33, 34-35, 590 
N.W.2d 711 (1999) ("The court is equally divided 
on whether to affirm or reverse the order of the 
circuit court on the charge of attempted first 
degree intentional homicide.  Justice Donald W. 
Steinmetz, Justice Jon P. Wilcox, and Justice N. 
Patrick Crooks would affirm; Justice William A. 
Bablitch, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, and Justice 
David T. Prosser would reverse. . . . [W]e vacate 
our order granting certification and remand the 
cause to the court of appeals . . . . Shirley S. 
Abrahamson, 
Chief 
Justice, 
did 
not 
participate."). 
9. 
State v. Watson, 209 Wis. 2d 281, 282-83, 562 
N.W.2d 151 (1997) ("The court is equally divided 
whether to affirm or reverse the order of the 
circuit 
court. 
 
Chief 
Justice 
Shirley 
S. 
Abrahamson, 
Justice 
William 
A. 
Bablitch 
and 
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley would affirm.  Justice 
Jon P. Wilcox, Justice Janine P. Geske and 
Justice N. Patrick Crooks would reverse.  Justice 
Donald 
W. 
Steinmetz 
did 
not 
participate. . . . [W]e vacate our order granting 
certification and remand to the court of appeal 
[sic]."). 
10. State v. Richard Knutson, Inc., 191 Wis. 2d 395, 
396-97, 528 N.W.2d 430 (1995) ("The court is 
equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse 
the judgment of the circuit court for Waukesha 
County.  Justice Day, Justice Abrahamson, and 
Justice Bablitch would affirm.  Chief Justice 
Heffernan, Justice Steinmetz, and Justice Geske 
would 
reverse. 
 
Justice 
Wilcox 
did 
not 
participate. . . . [W]e vacate our decision to 
certify and remand to the court of appeals."). 
  
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
13 
 
 
ATTACHMENT B 
 
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
14 
 
 
ATTACHMENT C 
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
 
No.  2014AP1938.ssa 
 
 
 
1