Court Opinion

ID: 9671767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:43:11.046581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:11.924904
License: Public Domain

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.
¶ 91. {concurring). I join the majority opinion. The majority correctly concludes that Doe does not allege that the Archdiocese knew that Nuedling had a problem as of 1960, and that such knowledge is essential to all three causes of action Doe raised against the Archdiocese. Majority op., ¶ 57. Because of that conclusion, we have explicitly declined to address the Archdiocese's arguments rooted in the statute of limitations, public policy, or the First Amendment. Id., ¶ 58. We do not normally decide constitutional questions if the case can be resolved on other grounds. State v. Hale, 2005 WI 7, ¶ 42, 277 Wis. 2d 593, 691 N.W.2d 637; Labor & Farm Party v. Elections Bd., 117 Wis. 2d 351, 354, 344 N.W.2d 177 (1984). As such, these questions have not been resolved, and will have to be addressed in possible future litigation.
¶ 92. I am authorized to state that Justice N. PATRICK CROOKS joins this concurring opinion.