Title: Mason Shoe Manufacturing Company v. Firstar Bank Eau Claire
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1997AP002053
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 29, 1999

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-2053 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
Mason Shoe Manufacturing Company,  
 
Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, 
 
v. 
Firstar Bank Eau Claire, NA, as Trustee of the 
Victor T. Mason Revocable Trust Dated October 1, 
1993, and Bernice Mason,  
 
Defendants-Co-Appellants, 
Richard Mason and Thomas Mason,  
 
Defendants-Appellants. 
__________________________________ 
Bernice M. Mason,  
 
Plaintiff, 
Thomas J. Mason and Richard P. Mason,  
 
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
 
v. 
John A. Lubs, Jane M. Lubs, William M. Scobie, 
Rosemary M. Scobie, Robert J. Allen, Paul B. 
Mason, Jr., David E. Frasch and Mason Shoe 
Manufacturing Company,  
 
Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. 
__________________________________ 
Firstar Bank Eau Claire NA, Estate of Victor T. 
Mason and Mason Revocable Grantor Trust,  
 
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
 
v. 
Mason Shoe Manufacturing Company, John A. Lubs, 
Jane M. Lubs, William M. Scobie, Rosemary M. 
Scobie, Paul B. Mason, Jr. and David E. Frasch,  
 
Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners.  
 
ON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at:  217 Wis. 2d 715, 579 N.W.2d 789 
 
 
 
(Ct. App. 1998-Published) 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
June 29, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Eau Claire 
 
JUDGE: 
Thomas H. Barland 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
Bradley, J., dissents (opinion filed) 
 
 
Abrahamson, C.J., joins 
 
Not Participating: Wilcox, J., did not participate. 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the defendants-respondents-petitioners & 
plaintiff-respondent-petitioner there was a brief by Daniel W. 
Hildebrand and DeWitt, Ross & Stevens, S.C., Madison; Steven R. 
Cray and Wiley, Wahl, Colbert, Norseng, Cray & Herrell, S.C., 
Chippewa Falls; Eric J. Magnuson, William P. Wassweiler and 
Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel, L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN. 
 
 
For the defendants-appellants & plaintiffs-
appellants there was a brief by Richard W. Pitzner, Stephen L. 
Morgan and Murphy & Desmond, S.C., Madison. 
 
 
For the defendants-co-appellants & plaintiff-
appellants there were briefs by C. Vernon Howard, James F. 
Gebhart and Stroud, Stroud, Willink, Thompson & Howard, Madison. 
 
No. 
97-2053 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 97-2053 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Mason Shoe Manufacturing Company,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Firstar Bank Eau Claire, NA, as Trustee  
of the Victor T. Mason Revocable Trust  
Dated October 1, 1993, and Bernice Mason,  
 
 
          Defendants-Co-Appellants, 
 
Richard Mason and Thomas Mason,  
 
          Defendants-Appellants. 
 
__________________________________ 
Bernice M. Mason,  
 
          Plaintiff, 
 
Thomas J. Mason and Richard P. Mason,  
 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
 
     v. 
 
John A. Lubs, Jane M. Lubs, William M.  
Scobie, Rosemary M. Scobie, Robert J.  
Allen, Paul B. Mason, Jr., David E.  
Frasch and Mason Shoe Manufacturing  
Company,  
 
          Defendants-Respondents- 
          Petitioners. 
 
__________________________________ 
Firstar Bank Eau Claire NA, Estate of  
Victor T. Mason and Mason Revocable  
FILED 
 
JUN 29, 1999 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
No. 
97-2053 
 
2 
Grantor Trust,  
 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
 
     v. 
 
Mason Shoe Manufacturing Company, John A.  
Lubs, Jane M. Lubs, William M. Scobie,  
Rosemary M. Scobie, Paul B. Mason, Jr.  
and David E. Frasch,  
 
          Defendants-Respondents- 
          Petitioners.  
 
 
JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL AND VACATUR.  Granted. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On May 18, 1998 this court granted a 
petition for review of a published court of appeals’ decision, 
see Mason Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Firstar Bank Eau Claire, 217 Wis. 2d 
715, 579 N.W.2d 789 (Ct. App. 1998), filed on behalf of Mason 
Shoe Manufacturing Company. The parties have filed a joint 
stipulation for dismissal and vacatur informing the court that 
they have reached an agreement disposing of all of the issues 
which were raised or might have been raised in the litigation. 
The parties ask this court to vacate the decisions of the court 
of appeals and the circuit court and remand the cases to the 
circuit court for entry of a judgment dismissing the cases with 
prejudice. The court concludes that, in this particular case, it 
is appropriate to honor the parties’ request. 
 
By the Court.-The decisions of the court of appeals and the 
circuit court are summarily vacated.  
¶2 
JUSTICE JON P. WILCOX did not participate.  
 
No. 
97-2053 
 
3 
 
97-2053.awb 
 
1 
¶3 
ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (Dissenting).   As part of the 
negotiated settlement agreement, the parties stipulated to 
request that this court vacate the published court of appeals 
decision in this case.  To my knowledge, this is the first time 
that the court has acted upon such a request.  Because I believe 
that the court's action is contrary to public policy, I dissent 
from that part of the opinion which vacates a published decision 
of the court of appeals.  
¶4 
As part of the settlement in their private dispute, 
the parties have stipulated to request that this court vacate 
both the circuit court’s decision and the published court of 
appeals’ decision.  I have no problem vacating the circuit 
court’s decision because the only parties in interest are the 
parties who signed the stipulation.  However, I believe that 
vacating a published court of appeals’ decision in response to a 
joint motion made as part of a private settlement agreement is 
contrary to public policy. 
¶5 
The United States Supreme Court set forth that public 
policy stating: 
 
Judicial precedents are presumptively correct and 
valuable to the legal community as a whole.  They are 
not merely the property of private litigants and 
should stand unless a court concludes that the public 
interest would be served by a vacatur.   
U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 
18, 26 (1994) (quoting Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. 
U.S. Philips Corp., 510 U.S. 27, 40 (1993) (Stevens, J., 
dissenting)).  The parties have not shown, because they could 
97-2053.awb 
 
2 
not show, that vacating this published court of appeals’ 
decision is in the public interest.   
¶6 
The court of appeals is primarily an error correcting 
court.  Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189, 560 N.W.2d 246 
(1997).  However, the court of appeals in effect shares in the 
supreme court's function of law defining and development when 
the 
supreme 
court 
declines 
to 
review 
court 
of 
appeals’ 
decisions.  By granting the stipulated motion to vacate the 
published decision of the court of appeals, the majority grants 
private 
parties 
the 
potential 
power 
to 
manipulate 
the 
development of law.  This is inconsistent with public policy and 
our 
responsibility 
for 
law 
development. 
 
Accordingly, 
I 
respectfully dissent from that part of the court’s opinion which 
vacates a published decision of the court of appeals.  
¶7 
I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE SHIRLEY S. 
ABRAHAMSON joins this opinion. 
 
 
  
 
97-2053.awb 
 
1