We wrote earlier this week about the new opinion drafting procedure in Wisconsin’s supreme court. To recap, the state’s justices voted 4-3 earlier this term to impose deadlines on the drafting process, presumably in response to the recent trend in which most of the court’s work has been released in the final weeks of its term.
We also noted that Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley have been critical of the new procedure’s effect on separate writings, claiming that the inflexible deadlines kept the court from harmonizing its views in related cases. We thought that that problem perhaps could have been solved by assigning similar cases, especially if argued on the same day, to one justice—instead of, as it happened the other day, assigning three cases on closely related issues to three different justices under the court’s quirky “poker chip” assignment system.
Apparently the debate continues. In the two opinions issued today, Preisler v. Kuettel’s Septic Service, 2014 WI 135, and Wilson Mutual Ins. Co. v. Falk, 2014 WI 136, both on the general subject of whether manure or septage spread on a farm field falls within the “pollutant” exception to CGL coverage, and (one assumes) argued on the same day for that reason, Justices Roggensack and Gableman wrote separate majority opinions. And Justice Bradley concurring and the Chief Justice dissenting pointed out that (in their views) there are inconsistencies in the opinions, leading to confusion in the law. The Chief Justice, in the last paragraph of her Wilson Mutual dissent, blames the new procedure for those faults.
We suggest again that the poker chip rule seems to be the real source of the problem. Instead of spending a lot of effort by all the justices in conference, trying to harmonize two or three opinions on closely related issues, why not consolidate the cases for treatment before the poker chip is drawn? Just asking.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.