Court Opinion

ID: 9694871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:58:44.051095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:06.223025
License: Public Domain

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.
¶ 146. (concurring). Twelve individuals (including six current or former state employees) bring a legal action against the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds (DETF), DETF Secretary Eric Stanchfield, the Employee Trust Funds Board, and the Group Insurance Board (collectively "DETF"). DETF is ably represented by the Wisconsin Attorney General. Yet simply because other entities who are not at all involved in this action are concerned that any decision rendered by a court of law might become binding precedent in some future legal action against them., the dissent asserts that as a matter of right, these uninvolved entities can essentially highjack this lawsuit from the parties and turn it into a political referendum unrelated to the action filed. Give me a break.
¶ 147. For purposes of this concurrence, the nature of the lawsuit and the issues presented are, for me, irrelevant. What is relevant is the impact of what the dissent suggests should happen here. Every published opinion of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals or of this court is binding precedent on all future litigants as to the issues presented. Thus, does every criminal defendant facing sentencing have a right to intervene in every *69appellate case involving sentencing? They will be bound by the result. What about parties to a contract? Can they intervene in any appellate case involving contract law and/or the economic loss doctrine? They certainly have an interest in the outcome. What about tort reform? Can Civil Trial Counsel of Wisconsin (CTCW) and the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers (WATL)1 intervene in every tort action brought on appeal? The precedent the court will decide as to tort law will most certainly bind them. And therein lies the absurdity of the dissent.
¶ 148. Under the facts of this case, the Wisconsin municipalities who have sought to intervene are definitely not the only outside entities that have an interest in the outcome of this case. Are we prepared to allow every pro- and anti-gay rights group, nationally and within Wisconsin, intervention as a matter of right in this case? What about every labor union that has members that might be affected by the outcome? Political leaders, church groups, social activists, and others will be bound by any published decision an appellate court will make. Are we prepared to let them all in, effectively taking over the litigation and running up costs, or do we hear from the parties who brought the action in the first place?
¶ 149. Let us keep in mind that the municipalities, and any other interested party, for that matter, can seek permission to file an amicus brief, putting forth their position. Such requests are routinely granted. Thus, I suspect, the municipalities will not be precluded from being heard in this matter. What the dissent suggests, however, will ultimately reduce the average citizen's access to the courts, in that large organizations *70with deep pockets will be allowed to intervene in any case in which they express an interest, driving up the costs to the point that the average Joe can no longer afford to be heard. This is unacceptable.
¶ 150. For the foregoing reasons, I join the majority opinion, and respectfully concur.

 Now known as the Wisconsin Association for Justice (WAJ), as of January 14, 2008.