Case Name: George Szwalkiewicz, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gorski Tool & Manufacturing Corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Rousselle Corpotion, and Nicholas Koceja, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ralph Koceja, Deceased, Defendants-Co-Appellants-Petitioners, F.W. Burns Machinery Company, Defendant-Intervenor
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1981
Citations: 104 Wis. 2d 755
Docket Number: No. 79-1690
Parties: George Szwalkiewicz, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gorski Tool & Manufacturing Corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Rousselle Corpotion, and Nicholas Koceja, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ralph Koceja, Deceased, Defendants-Co-Appellants-Petitioners, F.W. Burns Machinery Company, Defendant-Intervenor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports Second
Volume: 104
Pages: 755–763

Head Matter:
George Szwalkiewicz, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gorski Tool & Manufacturing Corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Rousselle Corpotion, and Nicholas Koceja, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ralph Koceja, Deceased, Defendants-Co-Appellants-Petitioners, F.W. Burns Machinery Company, Defendant-Intervenor.
Supreme Court
No. 79-1690.
(See, supra, p. 748.)

Opinion:
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting). I would not dismiss the petition to review as having been improvidently granted. The court should decide the issues raised in this case.
Further, as I wrote in City of Racine v. Schwartz, 95 Wis. 2d 745, 298 N.W.2d 925 (1980), when the court grants the petition to review and the parties file briefs and argue the case, I believe that if the court at this late stage of the appellate proceeding dismisses the petition to review as having been improvidently granted, the court should set forth the reason for the dismissal.