Court Opinion

ID: 9700592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:36:41.086195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:11.880467
License: Public Domain

LOUIS J. CECI, J.
(on motion for reconsideration) (concurring). I concur in the decision to deny a second reconsideration motion filed by the villages in the above-entitled matter. The original opinion was withdrawn, and the former dissent became the majority opinion and was issued as such. It is now the majority opinion of this court following the first motion for reconsideration.
As a member of the majority in the first opinion issued, I then properly moved for reconsideration at the time that the first reconsideration motion was made. Briefs were filed at the time of the first reconsideration motion and the second motion for reconsideration. The court was fully apprised of the positions of the parties both times.
*734Contrary to the assertions by the dissents, this court did not violate its internal operating procedures in issuing the majority opinion that was filed August 27,1992.
In the opening paragraph, that opinion says:
The court having mandated an opinion in this case and motions for reconsideration having been filed, the court has considered the motions for reconsideration and grants the motions for reconsideration. After having reconsidered the case in its entirety, the court withdraws the original opinion and dissent, and issues the following opinion with a revised mandate.
Shorewood School Dist. v. Wausau Ins., 170 Wis. 2d 347, 355, 488 N.W.2d 82 (1992).
This was not a motion for "rehearing" (as provided for in our previous rules) but a motion for reconsideration. The original majority opinion was withdrawn. It finally had only one supporter, and six of the justices voted for the majority opinion that was issued on August 27, 1992.
I am authorized to state that Justices ROLAND B. Day and Donald W. Steinmetz join in this concurrence.