2004 WI 129

 

 

 

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

 

 

 

 

 

Case No.:

00-0072

Complete Title:

 

 

Yvette M. Maurin, as Personal

Representative of the Estate of Shay

Leigh Maurin, deceased,

          Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant,

 

Yvette M. Maurin,, Individually and as

Personal Representative of the Estate of

Shay Leigh Maurin, and Joseph Maurin,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

 

Quad/Graphics, Inc.,

          Plaintiff,

 

     v.

 

Gordon Hall, M.D., Physicians Insurance

Company of Wisconsin, Inc., and Patients

Compensation Fund,

          Defendants-Appellants-Cross- Respondents.

 

 

 

 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

2004 WI 100

Reported at:  ___ Wis. 2d ___, 682 N.W.2d 866

 

 

Opinion Filed:

October 29, 2004 

Submitted on Briefs:

      

Oral Argument:

      

 

 

Source of Appeal:

 

 

Court:

      

 

County:

      

 

Judge:

      

 

 

 

Justices:

 

 

Concurred:

      

 

Dissented:

ABRAHAMSON, C.J., dissents (opinion filed).

CROOKS, J., joins dissent. 

 

Not Participating:

BUTLER, J., did not participate. 

 

 

 

Attorneys:

 

     

 

 

2004 WI 129

notice

This opinion is subject to further editing and modification.  The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. 

No. 00-0072   

(L.C. No.

98CV000229)

STATE OF WISCONSIN                   :

IN SUPREME COURT

 

 

Yvette M. Maurin, as Personal

Representative of the Estate of Shay

Leigh Maurin, deceased,

 

          Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-

          Appellant,

 

Yvette M. Maurin,, Individually and as

Personal Representative of the Estate of

Shay Leigh Maurin, and Joseph Maurin,

 

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

 

Quad/Graphics, Inc.,

 

          Plaintiff,

 

     v.

 

Gordon Hall, M.D., Physicians Insurance

Company of Wisconsin, Inc., and Patients

Compensation Fund,

 

          Defendants-Appellants-Cross-

          Respondents.

 

           

FILED

 

OCT 29, 2004

 

Cornelia G. Clark

Clerk of Supreme Court

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION for reconsideration.  Reconsideration denied. 

 

1     PER CURIAM.     The motion for reconsideration is denied, with $50.00 costs.

2     The motion filed by the Litigation Section of the State Bar to file an amicus memorandum brief and statement in support of the motion for reconsideration is granted.

3     LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J., did not participate.


4     SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (dissenting).  I continue my dissent because in my opinion the court has not acted fairly or wisely. 

5     The court's procedure in the present case goes directly to its institutional integrity.  As was stated in the concurrence to the majority opinion, the majority decided the case on an issue not raised, briefed or argued by the parties. 

6     The motion for reconsideration is based on the public good derived from an appellate process that ensures a full hearing of adversarial perspectives.  The fair way to conduct judicial business is to allow the parties (and any amicus) an opportunity to dispute a rationale initiated and relied upon by the court.   

7     If the adversarial appellate process is defective, and I think it was in the instant case, the process not only poses a threat to the adversarial system and to institutional integrity but also substantially increases the likelihood the court will reach a wrong decision on the merits.  The motion for reconsideration raises important considerations not contemplated in the majority opinion.

8     For the reasons set forth, I would set this case for re-argument.  I dissent from the denial of a motion for reconsideration.

9     I am authorized to state that Justice N. PATRICK CROOKS joins this dissent.