Court Opinion

ID: 9573026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:46:47.157235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:35:51.127569
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.

{concurring).

¶ 44. I write separately to forestall revisionist interpretations of the holding in Digicorp, Inc. v. Ameritech Corp., 2003 WI 54, 262 Wis. 2d 32, 662 N.W.2d 652, by those of us who participated in the case. The holding of the case is explained in a footnote to the Digicorp opinion. 262 Wis. 2d 32, ¶ 5, n. 2. The footnote states:
A majority of this court, Justices Crooks, Prosser, and Sykes, rejects the broad exception that the court of appeals adopted in Douglas-Hanson. However, because Justice Sykes would not adopt any fraud exception, there is also a majority of this court, Justices Bradley, Bablitch and Sykes, that rejects the narrow exception that was adopted by the Huron Tool court. Two Justices, Bradley and Bablitch, dissent stating that the Douglas-Hanson exception should apply. A majority holds that a fraud in the inducement exception to the economic loss doctrine exists, but there is an even split as to what the fraud in the inducement exception *652entails. While four Justices agree that there should be an exception, only two Justices, Crooks and Prosser, agree that the Huron Tool exception should be adopted. Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Wilcox did not participate in this case.
¶ 45. After the opinion was released, the plaintiff, Digicorp, joined Bacher Communications, Inc., a third-party defendant, in a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that the court did not have a clear majority by which to reverse and remand the decision to the court of appeals. They asked us to clarify our reasoning and the import of the holding as set forth in footnote 2. The third-party defendant's motion for reconsideration stated:
Public policy dictates that the courts should strive to make good law or, at least, clarify the law. In the absence of the ability to do so, the courts should strive to uphold the law as it exists.... In essence, the Court here provided a decision without an opinion. Ultimately, the Court has determined that they will overrule the Court of Appeals, but can offer no reasons of precedential value as to why the Court of Appeals is wrong, or what rule of law is correct.
We denied the motion for reconsideration without comment or further clarification.1
¶ 46. Those of us who participated in Digicorp may offer differing interpretations of the intent and consequences of footnote 2. However, when asked for clarification in the motion for reconsideration, we denied the motion without comment, leaving the interpretation for another day. That day will come when a *653full court can rule on the issue in a case that properly presents it. This is not such a case.

 The motion was denied on September 30, 2003. Only four justices considered the motion, because Justice Bablitch retired from the court prior to its consideration.