Court Opinion

ID: 9672506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:56:06.892433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:16.676891
License: Public Domain

DYKMAN, J.
(concurring). The lead opinion addresses two issues involving jurisdiction, and concludes that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Harris did not serve a copy of his petition on the joint committee for review of administrative rules. Though we are required to inquire into our jurisdiction sua sponte, we have done so, and have concluded that we have no jurisdiction, because the trial court had none. Notwithstanding our lack of jurisdiction to consider whether to overrule the Ver Hagen rule,1 the lead opinion nonetheless addresses this issue. To make matters worse, we have been given no assistance on this issue because the parties have neither briefed nor argued it.
The lead opinion addresses only one side of the Ver Hagen issue, and fails to consider the reasons for *94the rule or the uncertainty its new rule will create for appellate litigants. It offers no explanation for its decision to issue what is at best dicta. See American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Shannon, 120 Wis. 2d 560, 565, 356 N.W.2d 175, 178 (1984) ("A dictum is a statement not addressed to the question before the court or necessary for its decision.”). Nonetheless, because my jurisdiction is also lacking, I cannot address the question the lead opinion has discussed.

 Ver Hagen v. Gibbons, 55 Wis. 2d 21, 25, 197 N.W.2d 752, 745-55 (1972).