Court Opinion

ID: 9698149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:43:20.336575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:38.844599
License: Public Domain

ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting). This is the second time this case has been tried and appealed. The court now vacates the judgment on an issue which has not been raised or briefed by the parties or amicus curiae, namely the need to serve the attorney general under sec. 806.04 (11), Stats., when the application of a statute — rather than the statute itself — is alleged to be unconstitutional. This issue has not previously been decided by this court. The decision of this court on the issue not only affects the parties presently before the court but also affects many litigants and the attorney general. Under these circumstances, I would not vacate the judgment on this issue without first giving the parties — and the attorney general — an opportunity to be heard.
I have been authorized to state that Mr. Chief Justice BEILFUSS joins in this dissenting opinion.