Court Opinion

ID: 9714676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:42:44.679102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:27.674630
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
¶ 46. {concurring). I join Justice Bradley's opinion.
¶ 47. I write separately to add that I would not remand to the court of appeals the questions of the sufficiency of evidence and the circuit court's exercise of discretion.
*376¶ 48. Although this court has the power to remand issues to the court of appeals, this court should decide the entire appeal in the instant case in the interest of judicial economy, speedy resolution of appeals, reduced costs to litigants, and finality of decisions. In the instant case, "[rjemand is a wasteful duplication of decisional effort, even when, as in this case, the court of appeals did not consider the issues being remanded as worthy of certification."1
¶ 49. The court of appeals does not certify, and this court does not take jurisdiction over, discrete legal questions within the appeal. See Wis. Stat. §§ 808.05(2), 809.61 (2005-06). Upon certification from the court of appeals, this court takes jurisdiction of the entire case. As our standard certification order explains, "[w]hen 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)."
¶ 50. For the reasons set forth, I write this separate concurrence.

 State v. Stuart, 2003 WI 73, ¶ 48, 262 Wis. 2d 620, 664 N.W.2d 82 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citing Crown Life Ins. Co. v. LaBonte, 111 Wis. 2d 26, 45, 330 N.W.2d 201 (1983) (Abrahamson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)).