Title: Polsky v. Virnich
Citation: 2011 WI 69
Docket Number: 2007AP000203
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 12, 2011

2011 WI 69 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP203 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Michael S. Polsky as receiver for Communications 
Products  
Corporation, 
          Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant-
Petitioner, 
     v. 
Daniel E. Virnich and Jack M. Moores, 
          Defendants-Appellants-Cross-
Respondents. 
 
 
 
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE 
COURT’S MARCH 2, 2011 DECISION 
 
 
ORDER FILED: 
July 12, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C. J. dissents (Opinion filed). 
BRADLEY, J. AND CROOKS, J. join dissent.   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ZIEGLER, J. did not participate.   
 
 
 
 
2011 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.   2007AP203 
(L.C. No. 
2004CV285) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Michael S. Polsky as receiver for 
Communications Products Corporation, 
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant- 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Daniel E. Virnich and Jack M. Moores, 
 
          Defendants-Appellants-Cross- 
          Respondents. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 12, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  On September 22, 2010, the court granted 
Michael S. Polsky's petition for review.  Justice Roggensack 
participated in the order.  On February 3, 2011, oral argument 
was held.  Justice Roggensack participated in the oral argument.  
On March 2, 2011, the court issued its decision that affirmed 
the 
court 
of 
appeals 
based 
on 
a 
3:3 
decision 
of 
the 
participating justices.1  Polsky v. Virnich, 2011 WI 13, 332 
Wis. 2d 1, __ N.W.2d __.  Justice Roggensack participated in the 
decision.  
                                                 
1 Justice 
Annette 
Kingsland 
Ziegler 
withdrew 
from 
participation after the petition for review was granted, but 
before oral argument was heard.   
No. 
2007AP203   
 
2 
 
¶2 
On March 14, 2011, Polsky2 moved the court "for an 
order reconsidering the Court's March 2, 2011 per curiam 
opinion, or alternatively, to vacate the decision as void."  As 
grounds for the motion, Polsky asserted that because Justice 
Roggensack had not participated in this case when it was 
certified to the court in 2008 and when the court's July 7, 2009 
decision remanded the matter to the court of appeals, Polsky v. 
Virnich, 2009 WI 66, 318 Wis. 2d 599, 769 N.W.2d 52, she should 
be disqualified by the court from participation in the per 
curiam decision issued March 2, 2011.  The per curiam decision 
resulted in a 3:3 affirmance of the court of appeals.  Polsky 
asks that the court "grant his motion to reconsider the March 2, 
2011 per curiam decision or otherwise declare that decision 
void, and a new decision be issued by qualifying justices."  
¶3 
In response to Polsky's motion, Daniel E. Virnich and 
Jack M. Moores (hereinafter Virnich), contend that Polsky's 
motion was not timely because Virnich waited almost six months 
after the petition for review had been granted, with Justice 
Roggensack participating; five and one-half weeks after oral 
argument, with Justice Roggensack participating; and until after 
the court's decision that affirmed the court of appeals based on 
a 3:3 decision of the justices then participating.  Virnich also 
points out that Polsky has identified no basis under Wis. Stat. 
§ 757.19 requiring Justice Roggensack to conclude that she must 
                                                 
2 An amicus curiae, Sheet Metal Workers International Local 
Union No. 565, supports Polsky's motion. 
No. 
2007AP203   
 
3 
 
withdraw and that decisions about whether to participate in any 
given case are for the individual justice to decide, not the 
court, citing State v. American TV & Appliance of Madison, Inc., 
151 Wis. 2d 175, 443 N.W.2d 662 (1989).   
¶4 
We have concluded that this court does not have the 
power to remove a justice from participating in an individual 
proceeding, on a case-by-case basis.  State v. Henley, 2011 WI 
67, ¶25, __ Wis. 2d __, __ N.W.2d __.  We explained that our 
decision in regard to the scope of the court's power when asked 
to remove a justice on a case-by-case basis is consistent with 
the court's Internal Operation Procedures, IOP II.L.1., and that 
it is also "mirrors the way in which the United States Supreme 
Court addresses motions to disqualify a Supreme Court Justice."  
Henley, __ Wis. 2d __, ¶¶26-27.  We also concluded that due 
process is provided by the decisions of the individual justices 
who decide to participate in the cases presented to the court.  
Id., ¶¶13, 31.  Accordingly, for the reasons stated more fully 
in Henley, we deny Polsky's motion to disqualify Justice 
Roggensack. 
¶5 
ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 
 
 
No.  2007AP203.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶6 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (dissenting).  I dissent 
for the reasons set forth in the dissents in State v. Allen, 
2010 WI 10, 322 Wis. 2d 372, 778 N.W.2d 863; in State v. Henley, 
2011 WI 67, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___ (recusal motion); 
and in State v. Henley, 2011 WI 68, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 
N.W.2d ___ (amicus reconsideration).  I conclude that as a 
matter of federal and state constitutional due process the court 
must determine whether a party is denied due process when a 
justice refuses to recuse upon motion of a party. 
¶7 
I am authorized to state that Justices ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY and N. PATRICK CROOKS join this dissent. 
 
 
No.  2007AP203.ssa 
 
 
 
1