Title: John O. Norquist v. Cate Zeuske

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2002 WI 69 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
98-2795 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
John O. Norquist, Kevin M. Crawford, Michael R. 
Miller, Joseph Laux, Dan Thompson, Edward Huck, 
Gerald Jorgensen, Hunter Bohne, Janet Bohne, and 
Jill Bran,  
 
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
 
v. 
Cate Zeuske, in her official capacity as 
secretary of the Wisconsin Department of 
Revenue,  
 
Defendant-Respondent, 
Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation, Cooperative, 
Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of 
America, Wisconsin Division, National Farmers 
Organization, Wisconsn Agribusiness Concil, 
Wisconsin Agri-Service Association, Inc., 
Wisconsin Cattlemen's Association, Cooperative, 
Wisconsin Corn Growers Association, Inc., 
Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives, Wisconsin 
Pork Producers Association, Cooperative, 
Wisconsin Potato & Vegetable Growers 
Association, Inc., Wisconsin Soybean 
Association, Inc., Wisconsin State Cranberry 
Growers Association, Howard D. Poulson and 
Jeannette Poulson,  
 
Intervening Defendants-Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at:  231 Wis. 2d 238, 604 N.W.2d 304 
(Ct. App. 1999-Unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 25, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 11, 2002   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Dane   
 
JUDGE: 
Daniel L. LaRocque   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
2
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners there were briefs 
by Robert Horowitz, Barbara A. Neider and Stafford Rosenbaum 
LLP, Madison, and oral argument by Robert Horowitz. 
 
For the defendant-respondent there was a brief by F. Thomas 
Creeron, III, assistant attorney general, and James E. Doyle, 
attorney general, and oral argument by Peter C. Anderson, 
assistant attorney general. 
 
For the intervening defendants-respondents there was a 
brief by H. Dale Peterson, Sverre David Roang and Stroud, 
Willink & Howard, LLC, Madison, and oral argument by H. Dale 
Peterson. 
 
 
2002 WI 69 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  98-2795  
(L.C. No. 
97-CV-2606) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
John O. Norquist, Kevin M. Crawford,  
Michael R. Miller, Joseph Laux, Dan  
Thompson, Edward Huck, Gerald Jorgensen,  
Hunter Bohne, Janet Bohne, and Jill Bran,  
 
 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants- 
          Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Cate Zeuske, in her official capacity as  
secretary of the Wisconsin Department of  
Revenue,  
 
          Defendant-Respondent, 
 
Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation,  
Cooperative, Farmers Educational and  
Cooperative Union of America, Wisconsin  
Division, National Farmers Organization,  
Wisconsn Agribusiness Concil, Wisconsin  
Agri-Service Association, Inc., Wisconsin  
Cattlemen's Association, Cooperative,  
Wisconsin Corn Growers Association, Inc.,  
Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives,  
Wisconsin Pork Producers Association,  
Cooperative, Wisconsin Potato & Vegetable  
Growers Association, Inc., Wisconsin  
Soybean Association, Inc., Wisconsin  
State Cranberry Growers Association,  
Howard D. Poulson and Jeannette Poulson,  
 
          Intervening Defendants- 
          Respondents. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 25, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
No.  98-2795 
 
2
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This case is before the court on a 
petition for review filed by the plaintiffs, John O. Norquist, 
Kevin M. Crawford, Michael R. Miller, Joseph Laux, Dan Thompson, 
Edward Huck, Gerald Jorgensen, Hunter Bohne, Janet Bohne, and 
Jill 
Bran 
(hereinafter 
referred 
to 
collectively 
as 
"the 
plaintiffs").  The plaintiffs seek review of an unpublished 
decision of the court of appeals, Norquist v. Zeuske, No. 98-
2795, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 1999), 
affirming 
the 
circuit 
court’s 
decision 
to 
dismiss 
the 
plaintiffs’ complaint.   
¶2 
The underlying issue here is whether the plaintiffs 
have 
carried 
their 
burden 
to prove 
Wis. Stat. § 70.32(2r) 
unconstitutional.  The Dane County Circuit Court, Reserve Judge 
Daniel L. LaRocque, presiding, dismissed the plaintiffs’ case 
after concluding that the plaintiffs failed to carry their 
burden of proving the statute’s unconstitutionality.  The court 
of 
appeals 
affirmed, 
and 
we 
subsequently 
accepted 
the 
plaintiffs’ petition for review. 
¶3 
At oral argument, held on April 11, 2002, plaintiffs’ 
counsel noted that the plaintiffs seek only prospective relief.  
Consequently, plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that this case is 
moot if we uphold the Department of Revenue (DOR) regulations 
implementing Wis. Stat. § 70.32(2r), providing for use-value 
No. 
98-2795   
 
3 
 
assessment of agricultural land as of January 1, 2000, as 
presented before us this term in Mallo v. Department of Revenue, 
2002 WI 70, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___.  Today we uphold 
the validity of the DOR regulations in Mallo; therefore, we 
follow plaintiff’s counsel’s concession and dismiss this case as 
moot. 
¶4 
For the reasons set forth, we conclude that our 
decision in Mallo makes this case moot, and we dismiss the 
petition for review. 
By the Court.—The review of the decision of the court of 
appeals is dismissed. 
¶5 
DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate. 
 
 
No. 
98-2795   
 
 
 
1