Dane County v. Sheila W.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceDavid T. Prosser, J.
¶ 10. (concurring). The Per Curiam opinion concludes that this case is moot. It further concludes that, although the case raises issues of great public importance and presents a situation likely to repeat itself yet evade appellate review, the court should not proceed to exercise its discretion to take up issues that ought, if possible, to be decided by the legislature. I strongly agree with this decision. I write separately to supplement the explanation of why further court action at this time would be premature and undesirable.
I
¶ 11. In considering this case, the court is not fully apprised…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of HealthSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Cardwell v. BechtolTennessee Supreme Court · 1987
- Stephen Kozup v. Georgetown University, D/B/A Georgetown University Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988
- State v. Dale R. NeumannWisconsin Supreme Court · 2013
- In Re EGIllinois Supreme Court · 1989
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.