Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bicknese v. Sutula

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 2, 2003No. 00-1825Published

1DissentAnn Walsh Bradley, J.

¶ 34. (dissenting). Two very subtle passages in the majority's opinion deserve attention. One has a substantial effect on the outcome of this case and the other affects the development of our law. Both could easily go unnoticed.

¶ 35. The first is a subtle shift in the analysis set forth in ¶ 25 of the opinioj). which erroneously transposes a promise of an offer of employment into an offer of employment. This seemingly slight shift is outcome determinative in this case.

¶ 36. The second is set forth in footnote 2, which at first blush is a rather innocuous statement indicating that "public…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Lister v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin SystemWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  2. C.L. v. OlsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Willow Creek Ranch, L.L.C. v. Town of ShelbyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Kierstyn v. Racine Unified School DistrictWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Energy Complexes, Inc. v. Eau Claire CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1989

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

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

Powered by the Exa API