Title: Wingra Redi-Mix, Inc. v. State Historical Society of Wisconsin

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2018 WI 55 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP1632 & 2015AP1844 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Wingra Redi-Mix, Inc. d/b/a Wingra Stone 
Company, 
          Petitioner-Respondent-Cross-Appellant- 
Petitioner, 
     v. 
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 
          Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, 
Ho-Chunk Nation, 
          Intervenor-Co-Appellant-Cross-
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at 377 Wis. 2d 727, 902 N.W.2d 808  
(2017 – unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 22, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 17, 2018 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Dane 
 
JUDGE: 
John C. Albert 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, J., concurs (opinion filed). 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: KELLY, J., withdrew from participation.    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For 
the 
petitioner-respondent-cross-appellant-petitioner, 
there were briefs filed by Bryan K. Nowicki, John H. Zawadsky, 
Brittany Lopez Naleid, Amy L. MacArdy, and Reinhart Boerner Van 
Deuren S.C., Milwaukee.  There was an oral argument by Bryan K. 
Nowicki. 
 
For the respondent-appellant-cross-respondent, there was a 
brief filed by Thomas C. Bellavia, assistant attorney general, 
and Brad D. Schimel, attorney general.  There was an oral 
argument by Thomas C. Bellavia, assistant attorney general. 
 
 
2 
 
For the intervenor-co-appellant-cross-respondent, there was 
a brief filed by Amanda L. WhiteEagle and Ho-Chunk Nation Dep't 
of Justice, Black River Falls, with whom on the brief were 
Howard M. Shanker and The Shanker Law Firm, PLC, Tempe, Arizona.  
There was an oral argument by Howard M. Shanker. 
 
 
2018 WI 55
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2015AP1632 & 2015AP1844 
(L.C. No. 
2014CV2262) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Wingra Redi-Mix, Inc. d/b/a Wingra Stone 
Company, 
 
          Petitioner-Respondent-Cross-
Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant-Cross-
Respondent, 
 
Ho-Chunk Nation, 
 
          Intervenor-Co-Appellant-Cross-
Respondent. 
FILED 
 
MAY 22, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed by an equally divided court. 
¶2 
DANIEL KELLY, J., withdrew from participation. 
 
No.  2015AP1632 & 2015AP1844.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶3 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (concurring).  As I did 
last term in Smith v. Kleynerman,1 I write separately to preserve 
institutional and historical memory.   
¶4 
In the instant case, the court is equally divided on 
the question of whether the unpublished decision of the court of 
appeals2 should be affirmed or reversed.  The per curiam opinion 
does not list the names and votes of the participating justices.   
¶5 
In Kleynerman, an opinion issued on March 21, 2017, I 
catalogued 115 of this court's cases from 1885 through 2016 in 
which the names and votes of the participating justices were 
presented and 26 cases from 1849 through 2016 in which the names 
and votes of the participating justices were not presented. 
¶6 
Since Kleynerman, a total of two cases (including 
Kleynerman) have resulted in an equally divided court.3  The 
court did not present the names and votes of the participating 
justices in either case.  In the instant case and its companion,4 
the court continues to deviate from the court's historical 
                                                 
1 Smith v. Kleynerman, 2017 WI 22, 374 Wis. 2d 1, 892 
N.W.2d 734. 
2 Wingra Redi-Mix, Inc. v. State Historical Soc'y of 
Wisconsin, Nos. 2015AP1632 & 2015AP1844, unpublished slip op. 
(Wis. Ct. App. July 31, 2017). 
3 Smith 
v. 
Kleynerman, 
2017 
WI 
22, 
374 
Wis. 2d 892 
N.W.2d 734 (on appeal); P'ship Health Plan, Inc. v. Office of 
Comm'r of Ins., 2018 WI 1, 379 Wis. 2d 56, 905 N.W.2d 122 (on 
appeal). 
4 Wingra Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Burial Sites Preservation Bd., 
No. 2014AP2498, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. July 31, 
2017). 
No.  2015AP1632 & 2015AP1844.ssa 
 
2 
 
practice by failing to present the names and votes of the 
participating 
justices. 
The 
court 
has 
still 
provided 
no 
explanation for its change in practice.   
¶7 
Although the dominant practice has been to list the 
names and votes of the participating justices, this court's 
historical practice has been inconsistent, and there is no 
established rule resolving the issue.5   
¶8 
My view is that the court should consistently report 
the names and votes of the participating justices in the event 
of a tie vote.  Such a practice advances the important goal of 
transparency in government and is consistent with every other 
opinion of this court in which the vote of each participating 
justice is known to the public. 
¶9 
For the foregoing reasons, I write separately. 
 
                                                 
5 I do note, however, that The Wisconsin Supreme Court Style 
and Procedures Manual contains a section entitled "Examples of 
Per Curiam Opinions where court is equally divided[.]"  The only 
two examples listed are both cases in which the names and votes 
of the participating justices are presented. 
No.  2015AP1632 & 2015AP1844.ssa 
 
1