Legal Opinion · Dissent

Krier v. Vilione

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 2009No. 2006AP1573, 2006AP2290Published

1DissentAnn Walsh Bradley, J.

¶ 70. {dissenting). I agree with the analysis and conclusion of a unanimous court of appeals that the plaintiffs "have asserted their own claims for damages, which are separate from those that could allegedly be claimed by EOG Environmental." See Krier v. Vilione, 2007 WI App 235, ¶ 24, 306 Wis. 2d 147, 742 N.W.2d 537. "[A]s parties claiming to *329have been injured by [the accountants'] malpractice, they seek to recover damages that they incurred." Id., ¶ 26. Therefore, the plaintiffs' "interests are more than sufficient to confer standing." Id., ¶ 25.

¶ 71. The majority, however, disagrees with…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. DoyleWisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Rose v. SchantzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Notz v. Everett Smith Group, Ltd.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Jorgensen v. Water Works, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2001
  5. Krier v. VilioneCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API