Court Opinion

ID: 9675611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:59:03.787866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:11.616762
License: Public Domain

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.
¶ 108. (dissenting). I agree with and adopt, for purposes of this opinion, Justice Wilcox's concurring opinion,1 and its discussion of "comparable replacement business" pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 39.19(2)(c). There is no need to repeat that analysis here. Applying his analysis of the statute to the facts of this case, I strongly disagree with his conclusion *667that the property at 1700 East Delavan Drive in Janes-ville constituted a "comparable replacement business."2 Accordingly, I dissent.
¶ 109. The affidavit of Michael Ryan, the terminal manager for CC Midwest, stressed the need for a cross-docking3 arrangement for the loading and unloading of trucks. The affidavit pointed out that the loading and unloading of freight is accomplished with forklifts, and that by far the most time efficient way to load and unload is with a cross-dock operation. This arrangement allowed CC Midwest to minimize "traffic jams" between forklifts.
¶ 110. Without a cross-dock operation, according to Ryan, forklifts must loop out of the back of one truck and into the back of another. This type of operation causes interference between forklift operators and results in not only a loss of time and efficiency, but presents a safety hazard as well. This is because freight is stacked on pallets up to seven feet high and eight and one-half feet wide. Thus, the operator has virtually no visibility to the front.
¶ 111. Ryan made it clear that cross-dock capabilities were essential to their less-than-truckload (LTL) process, and that any property that was to meet CC Midwest's needs must have this process, as their then-existing terminal did. A total of twenty docks were needed, the same number CC Midwest then had in place.
*668¶ 112. The 1700 East Delavan Property does not qualify as a "comparable replacement business" under Wis. Stat. § 32.19(2)(c). Without cross-docking capabilities, the property was not adequate for the needs of the business, was not reasonably similar in all major characteristics, was not functionally equivalent with respect to its condition, and was not suited for the same type of business conducted by the acquired business at the time of the acquisition. See Wis. Stat. § 32.19(2)(c). Compare Justice Wilcox's concurrence, ¶ 56.
¶ 113. The majority opinion dismisses CC Midwest's cross-docking needs, indicating that CC Midwest offered no reason why cross-docks could not be constructed. Majority op., ¶ 45. Taking that logic to its ultimate conclusion, a vacant lot would be adequate under the lead opinion's rationale.
¶ 114. Wisconsin Stat. § 32.05(8)(c) provides that the condemnor may not require the persons who occupy the premises on the date that title vests in the condem-nor to vacate "until a comparable replacement property" is made available. Given that the City failed to provide a property that satisfied the criteria of a "comparable replacement business," it failed to make a "comparable replacement property" available. Accordingly, the City should not have been granted a writ of assistance pursuant to § 32.05(8)(c). CC Midwest should not have been forced to vacate the premises.
¶ 115. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

 That is, all but ¶ 60 of Justice Wilcox's concurring opinion. In my view, the proper application of Justice Wilcox's analysis necessitates a dissent under these facts.

 I agree with Justice Wilcox that none of the other properties constitute a "comparable replacement business." Justice Wilcox's concurrence, ¶¶ 61-62.

 Cross-docking is a practice in logistics of unloading materials from an incoming semi-trailer truck and loading these materials in outbound trailers, with little or no storage in between.