Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Concurrence
MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J. (concurring).
¶159 I agree that we should no longer give deference to administrative agency conclusions of law and that the services provided by Stuyvesant Dredging constitute "processing" under Wis. Stat. § 77.52(2). However, unlike the lead opinion, I would apply the doctrine of *605constitutional avoidance and eliminate deference by withdrawing the language in Harnischfeger Corp. v. LIRC, 196 Wis.2d 650, 539 N.W.2d 98 (1995), that indicated deference is mandatory. Specifically, I would withdraw the following two sentences: (1) "courts should defer to an administrative…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Holytz v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of WausauWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
- Harnischfeger Corp. v. Labor & Industry Review CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1995
- Bartholomew v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund & Compcare Health Services InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. CastilloWisconsin Supreme Court · 1997
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.