2007
WI 40
|
Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
|
|
|
|
Case No.: |
2005AP544 |
|
|
|
|
Complete Title: |
|
|
|
DaimlerChrysler c/o ESIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Labor and Industry Review Commission and Glenn May, Defendants-Respondents. |
|
|
|
|
|
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 2007 WI 15 Reported at: ___ Wis. 2d ___, 727 N.W.2d 311 |
|
|
|
|
Opinion Filed: |
March 30, 2007 |
|
Submitted on Briefs: |
||
Oral Argument: |
||
|
|
|
Source of Appeal: |
|
|
|
Court: |
|
|
County: |
|
|
Judge: |
|
|
|
|
Justices: |
|
|
|
Concurred: |
|
|
Dissented: |
|
|
Not Participating: |
|
|
|
|
Attorneys: |
|
2007
WI 40
notice
This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.
MOTION for reconsideration. Reconsideration denied.
¶1 PER CURIAM. DaimlerChrysler moves the court to reconsider its opinion in DaimlerChrysler v. Labor & Industry Review Comm'n, 2007 WI 15, ____ Wis. 2d ____, 727 N.W.2d 311, on the ground that the court based its decision on a statute not in effect when the injury to Glenn May occurred.
¶2 The motion for reconsideration is denied.
¶3 However, to clarify the DaimlerChrysler opinion, we now add the following footnote at the end of the second sentence of ¶39:
17 Wisconsin Stat. § 102.32(6)(b) became effective March 30, 2004. Wis. Act 144. It was therefore not in effect at the time of May's accident. We draw on it here not as a statement of the law in 1999, but because it demonstrates that the LIRC's interpretation of § 102.18(1)(d) is reasonable.
¶4 Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied, without costs.