Jenkins v. Sabourin

I dissent for two reasons: First, the cross-claim of Sabourin and Badger does not contain “a short and plain state*324ment of the claim, identifying the transaction, occurrence or event or series of transactions, occurrences, or events out of which the claim arises” as required by sec. 802.02(1), Stats. 1979-80. Accordingly I would vacate the decision of the court of appeals and would modify the order of the circuit court to grant Sabourin and Badger leave to replead. Second, even if I were to interpret the cross-claim as the majority does, I would conclude that the cross-claim states a claim…