Title: City of Sheboygan v. Steven Nytsch

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2008 WI 64 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP2767 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
City of Sheboygan, 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
     v. 
Steven Nytsch, 
          Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
2006 WI App 191 
Reported at: 296 Wis. 2d 73, 722 N.W.2d 626 
(Ct. App. 2006-Published) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 19, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Sheboygan   
 
JUDGE: 
Gary Langhoff   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ZIEGLER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 64
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP2767  
(L.C. No. 
2005TR4201 & 2005TR4202) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
City of Sheboygan, 
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Steven Nytsch, 
 
          Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 19, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Petition for 
review granted; remanded with directions.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Pending before the court is a petition 
for review filed by Steven Nytsch.  We decline to review this 
matter.  However, we deviate from our usual practice of denying 
the petition for review by written order.  Rather, we grant the 
petition for the sole purpose of remanding the matter to the 
court of appeals with directions to vacate certain language 
contained in footnote 6 of the court of appeals' decision. 
¶2 
The court of appeals was presented with the question 
whether the circuit court properly applied the doctrine of issue 
preclusion to the facts of this case.  The circuit court 
No. 
2005AP2767   
 
2 
 
accepted Nytsch's argument that the doctrine of issue preclusion 
barred the city of Sheboygan from litigating the question 
whether there was probable cause to arrest Nytsch for drunk 
driving.  In rendering this decision, the circuit court 
acknowledged the general rule that unpublished opinions may not 
be 
cited 
as 
precedent 
or 
authority. 
 
See 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ (Rule) 809.23(3) (2005-06).1  Nonetheless, the circuit court 
then proceeded to adopt and specifically relied upon the 
rationale of an unpublished court of appeals' opinion, Village 
of Westfield v. Mashek, No. 1994AP361, unpublished slip op. 
(Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 1994).   
¶3 
On appeal the court of appeals reversed, holding that 
the city of Sheboygan was not precluded from litigating the 
probable cause issue on the merits, on the ground that the issue 
was not actually litigated.  The court of appeals ruled that it 
would be fundamentally unfair to apply issue preclusion in this 
case.  See City of Sheboygan v. Nytsch, 2006 WI App 191, ¶1, 296 
Wis. 2d 73, 722 N.W.2d 626.  We take no position on the merits 
of the court of appeals' decision. 
¶4 
What concerns this court is the final footnote to the 
court of appeals' decision, in which the court characterized the 
unpublished decision upon which the circuit court relied as 
"wrongly decided." Id., n.6.   
                                                 
1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2005-06 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2005AP2767   
 
3 
 
¶5 
It is well settled that the court of appeals may not 
overrule, 
modify 
or 
withdraw 
language 
from 
a 
previously 
published decision of the court of appeals.  Cook v. Cook, 208 
Wis. 2d 166, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997).  Admittedly, Village of 
Westfield is an unpublished decision.  However, that implicates 
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.23(3), which provides that: 
An unpublished opinion is of no precedential value and 
for this reason may not be cited in any court of this 
state as precedent or authority, except to support a 
claim of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or the 
law of the case. 
Can the court of appeals analyze——and effectively overrule——a 
decision that wholly lacks either precedential or persuasive 
authority, as a matter of law?  Certainly, the court's analysis 
explains why the court of appeals overruled the circuit court's 
ruling.  But, in so doing, the court implicitly acknowledges 
that the Westfield decision, albeit unpublished, does indeed 
have persuasive authority.  This court is fully aware that 
appellate courts and lawyers alike look to unpublished decisions 
to bolster legal arguments and to ensure consistency in outcome.  
However, our current rules do not sanction this practice.  Thus, 
we direct the court of appeals to strike the following language 
from footnote 6: 
In this case, reliance on the rationale of 
Village of Westfield was misplaced.  After a review of 
that decision, we conclude that it was wrongly 
decided.  The primary flaw in Village of Westfield, is 
our failure to apply the issue preclusion test set out 
in Michelle T. v. Crozier, 173 Wis. 2d 681, 495 N.W.2d 
327 (1993).  While we cited to Michelle T., 173 
Wis. 2d at 687, for the definition of issue preclusion 
(then called collateral estoppel), we inexplicably 
No. 
2005AP2767   
 
4 
 
turned to State ex rel. Flowers v. DHSS, 81 Wis. 2d 
376, 387, 260 N.W.2d 727 (1978), for the test that 
would 
be 
applied——"[t]he 
four 
elements 
of 
the 
collateral estoppel test have been identified as 
including:  (1) a valid, final judgment; (2) identity 
of issues; (3) privity of parties; and (4) issues 
which have been litigated and necessarily determined."  
As we discuss in the body of this decision, the proper 
test to be applied is the looser, equities-based test 
found in Michelle T., 173 Wis. 2d at 687-89, which 
asks, in part, whether the issue actually has been 
litigated 
and 
whether 
applying 
issue 
preclusion 
comports with the principles of fundamental fairness.  
See Brown County Dep't of Human Servs. v. Terrance M., 
2005 WI App 57, ¶10 n.6, 280 Wis. 2d 396, 694 N.W.2d 
458, review denied, 2005 WI 134, 282 Wis. 2d 723, 700 
N.W.2d 274 (2005); Mrozek v. Intra Fin. Corp., 2005 WI 
73, ¶17, 281 Wis. 2d 448, 699 N.W.2d 54.  The result 
in Village of Westfield is wrong because we did not——
as we do here——consider these questions.   
¶6 
Although 
we 
direct 
the 
court 
to 
strike 
the 
aforementioned language, this directive does not end our review. 
¶7 
There has been considerable debate at the state and 
national levels about rules prohibiting citation to unpublished 
decisions.  The Wisconsin Judicial Council has filed a rule 
petition with this court regarding citation to unpublished 
decisions and the matter will be set for a public hearing in due 
course.2   
                                                 
2 The pending rule petition, No. 08-02, In re: Proposed 
Amendments to Wisconsin Statute (Rule) 809.23(3) (filed Jan. 25, 
2008), asks the court to amend Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.23(3) as 
follows: 
809.23(3) CITATION OF UUNPUBLISHED OPINIONS NOT CITED. 
(a) An unpublished opinion is of no precedential value 
and for this reason may not be cited in any court of 
this state as precedent or authority, except to 
support a claim of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, 
or the law of the case. 
No. 
2005AP2767   
 
5 
 
¶8 
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for review is granted, 
and the case is remanded to the court of appeals with directions 
to strike the language from footnote 6 as set forth herein. 
¶9 
ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
(b) In addition to the purposes specified in sub. 
(a), an unpublished opinion may be cited for its 
persuasive value. Because an unpublished opinion cited 
for its persuasive value is not precedent, it is not 
binding on any court of this state, and a court need 
not distinguish or otherwise discuss it. 
No. 
2005AP2767   
 
 
 
1