Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Foley-Ciccantelli v. Bishop's Grove Condominium Ass'n

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 24, 2011No. 2009AP688Published

1ConcurrencePatience Drake Roggensack, J.

¶ 137. {concurring). The lead opinion concludes that the defendants have standing to object to the plaintiffs' choice of attorney in this slip and fall negligence action. The lead opinion so concludes based on a potential witness's past employment of the plaintiffs' attorney's law firm for land and condominium development that is unrelated to the Bishop's Grove Condominiums.1 The interest that the lead opinion identifies is the attorney-client confidences of the potential witness that are protected by Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 20:1.9.2

*464¶ 138. I do not join the lead opinion for three reasons:…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Loy v. BundersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  4. City of Madison v. Town of FitchburgWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Rose v. SchantzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API