Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Kenosha Professional Firefighters, Local 414 v. City of Kenosha

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 2009No. 2007AP1198Published

1ConcurrencePatience Drake Roggensack, J.

¶ 44. (concurring). I agree with the majority opinion's conclusion that the peremptory writ issued April 27, 2006, did not dispose of the entirety of the Kenosha Professional Firefighters, Local 414, IAFF, AFL-CIO and Alan M. Horgen's (hereinafter collectively referred to as the firefighters) petition for mandamus to compel compliance with their open records request because it was not a final order with regard to the matrix scores they had requested.1 I write in concurrence because the lack of finality of the peremptory writ is the sole reason that this court should conclude that the January…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Edward L. Richardson v. Chuck Penfold and Edward DyerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
  2. Sandwiches, Inc., D/B/A Suburpia Submarine Sandwich Shoppes, Plaintiff- Cross-Appellee v. Wendy's International, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
  3. Baumeister v. Automated Products, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Wambolt v. West Bend Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Hartman v. Winnebago CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1998

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API