Dr. Randall Melchert v. Pro Electric Contractors
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceShirley S. Abrahamson, J.
¶ 46. {concurring). I agree that the decision of the court of appeals should be affirmed. I would affirm the decision, however, by dismissing the petition for review as having been improvidently granted.
¶ 47. The court should dismiss the petition as improvidently granted because, as the majority opinion explains at length, the two issues the parties raised were decided by the court of appeals consistently with Showers Appraisals, LLC v. Musson Bros., Inc., 2013 WI 79, 350 Wis. 2d 509, 835 N.W.2d 226, and Estate of Lyons v. CNA Insurance Companies, 207 Wis. 2d 446, 558 N.W.2d 658 (Ct. App.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Penson v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Polk County v. DodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- MacKey v. MontrymSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- In RE MARRIAGE OF COOK v. CookWisconsin Supreme Court · 1997
- Holytz v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.