Court Opinion

ID: 9731514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:48:10.709489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:18.936526
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON J.
(concurring). I join the court’s opinion. I write separately to comment on a practical problem in appellate practice, namely, how appellate counsel and this court should handle issues not addressed by the court of appeals.
The court’s opinion properly addresses issues not addressed by the court of appeals. See swpra, pp. 543-547.1 *548The record is before us and the issues have been briefed in this court.
In some cases in the past, we have decided the “undecided issues.” In other cases in the past, we have remanded the undecided issues to the court of appeals.2 We have not explained why we take one approach or the other. Counsel are unable to predict whether this court will decide the “undecided” issues or remand them to the court of appeals. Counsel therefore are uncertain whether to raise and brief these “undecided” issues in this court.
In this case, the defendant’s reply brief recognized that the undecided issues in this case were not raised in the petition for review (sec. 809.62(6), Stats. 1981-82), or in this court’s order granting the petition, or in the defendant’s brief-in-chief. The defendant’s reply brief further recognized that this court might nevertheless “take it upon itself” to decide these issues and discussed these issues. The state’s brief addressed the undecided issues.
1 write to call counsels’ attention to take care in their petitions for review and in their briefs and oral arguments in this court to consider how the undecided issues should be resolved.

 As I have written previously, in the interest of judicial economy, speedy resolution of appeals, reduced costs to the litigants, and finality of decisions, if all the issues have been briefed I would have this court decide the entire case when it is before us *548on review. See, e.g., State v. Sarabia, 118 Wis. 2d 655, 674, 348 N.W.2d 527 (1984) (Abrahamson, J., concurring and dissenting); Soquet v. Soquet, 117 Wis. 2d 553, 461, 345 N.W.2d 401 (1984) (Abrahamson, J., concurring); Shopper Advertiser v. Department of Rev., 117 Wis. 2d 223, 236, 344 N.W.2d 115 (1984) (Abraham-son, J., concurring and dissenting); Radtke v. City of Milwaukee, 116 Wis. 2d 550, 558, 342 N.W.2d 435 (1984) (Abrahamson, J., concurring and dissenting); Crown Life Ins. Co. v. LaBonte, 111 Wis. 2d 26, 45, 330 N.W.2d 201 (1983) (Abrahamson, J., concurring and dissenting).

 See, e.g., State v. Marshall, 113 Wis. 2d 643, 656, 335 N.W.2d 612 (1983); State v. McConnohie, 113 Wis. 2d 362, 375, 334 N.W. 2d 903 (1983); and State v. Derenne, 102 Wis. 2d 38, 48, 306 N.W. 2d 12 (1981).