Court Opinion

ID: 9690420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:12:01.09678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:56.930264
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
¶ 39. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the conclusion in the majority opinion that Jackson County cannot rescind the tax deed.
¶ 40. I would not, however, remand the remaining issues to the court of appeals even though this court has the power to do so. In addition to the issue that is addressed by the majority opinion, the parties briefed two issues that the majority opinion declines to address. These issues involve the extent of the county's responsibilities as the present owner of a former landfill.1
*525¶ 41. Perhaps the court (including me) erred in not limiting the issues on accepting certification in the instant case. Perhaps! Nevertheless, I would not remand the issues. I would have this court decide these fully briefed issues in the interest of judicial economy, speedy resolution of appeals, reduced costs to the litigants, and finality of decisions. Remand is a wasteful duplication of efforts.
¶ 42. When this court grants certification it acquires jurisdiction of the case including all issues, not merely the issues certified by the court of appeals or the issue upon which the court accepts certification. Wis. Stat. §§ 808.05(2); (Rule) 809.61; see Wis. Const. art. VII, § 3(3). The order granting certification in the instant case is the standard certification order used by this court, asserting jurisdiction over all issues in the matter before the court.2 The court's standard practice in certification cases is to decide all issues raised by the briefs. See, e.g., Schwister v. Schoenecker, 2002 WI 132, *526¶ 1 n.1, 258 Wis. 2d 1, 654 N.W.2d 852; State v. Stoehr, 134 Wis. 2d 66, 70, 396 N.W.2d 177 (1986).
¶ 43. A certification by the court of appeals bringing up the entire appeal to this court is very different from this court's answering a certified question of law submitted to this court by the United States Supreme Court, a federal court of appeals, or the supreme court of another state.3 The court of appeals does not certify, and this court does not take jurisdiction over, discrete legal questions within the appeal.4 Certification is not and should not become the practice of the court of appeals certifying questions of law.
¶ 44. Having limited experience with certified questions, I can say that I have a high level of discomfort deciding a question of law in the abstract, stripped of facts. Facts influence the statement of and application of a question of law.
¶ 45. Having substantial experience with certification and petitions for review, I am often hesitant to limit the issues before this court because often, not always, several legal issues are so intertwined that they cannot be decided separately.
*527¶ 46. In any event, in the instant case the time for this court to have determined whether it was going to decide all issues or was going to limit the issues and remand some to the court of appeals was in the order accepting the certification. That procedure would have allowed the parties to know which issues to spend their time and resources briefing and arguing.
¶ 47. The standard certification order in the instant case advised the parties that all issues would be addressed. Accordingly, the parties briefed all the issues and presented them at oral argument. The parties thus used their resources and those of this court. By remanding issues of law to the court of appeals that are properly before this court, that were fully briefed and argued by the parties, and that could be decided by the court, the majority opinion imposes unnecessary expenses on the parties, imposes additional work on the court of appeals, fosters the possibility of another review in this court, and delays the administration of justice.
¶ 48. Although I might have joined my colleagues in limiting the issues on acceptance of the certification, I am persuaded that remand now is inefficient appellate practice and procedure.5 I write because I do not want the bench and bar to think this case sets a precedent for future appellate practice or procedure. It does not. For these reasons, I write separately.

 Jackson County Sanitary Landfill, Inc. raised and briefed the following significant state-wide issue:
As the owner of real property that was used as a solid waste facility, does a county have responsibility for the long-term care and maintenance of the property?
*525Jackson County raised and briefed the following related issue:
Did the Circuit Court err when it dismissed the declaratory judgment action in its entirety, depriving Jackson County of the opportunity to conduct discovery and present its case on the remaining issues?

 The certification order states in pertinent part:
IT IS ORDERED that certification is granted and the appeal is accepted for consideration of all issues raised before the court of appeals. When this court grants direct review upon certification, it acquires jurisdiction of the case, Wis. Const. art. VII, § 3(3), that is, the entire appeal, which includes all issues, not merely the issues certified or the issue for which the court accepts certification. State v. Stoehr, 134 Wis. 2d 66, 70, 396 N.W.2d 177 (1986); Wis. Stat. § 808.06(2) and (Rule) 809.61. Further, the court has jurisdiction over issues not certified because the court may review an issue directly on its own motion. Wis. Stat. § 808.05(3)....

 See Wis. Stat. § 821.01 (2003-04), which states:
821.01 Power to answer.
The supreme court may answer questions of law certified to it by the supreme court of the United States, a court of appeals of the United States or the highest appellate court of any other state when requested by the certifying court if there are involved in any proceeding before it questions of law of this state which may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court and as to which it appears to the certifying court there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the supreme court and the court of appeals of this state.

 See Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.61.

 For my prior objections to remand to the court of appeals in certification cases, see State v. Stuart, 2003 WI 73, ¶¶ 44-55, 262 Wis. 2d 620, 664 N.W.2d 82 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Crown Life Ins. Co. v. LaBonte, 111 Wis. 2d 26, 45-46, 330 N.W.2d 201 (1983) (Abrahamson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).