Court Opinion

ID: 9704282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:29:40.213027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:59.635999
License: Public Domain

DYKMAN, J.
(concurring). Because the parties agreed that the trial court's dismissal of the remaining claims was a discretionary act, we reviewed the issue *307for abuse of discretion. This is probably an incorrect standard of review, and future use of our opinion should be undertaken with that in mind. In addition, the parties did not brief the question whether the state is a person entitled to protection under art. I, sec. 9 of the Wisconsin Constitution, or whether the separation of powers doctrine applies to the facts of this case. Respondent does not argue that the trial court’s decision should be upheld because the state had "made its point." Without the assistance of briefs, I am reluctant to conclude that reversal is required by anything other than Schroeder v. Register Pub. Corp., 124 Wis. 2d 384, 369 N.W.2d 387 (1985).