Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State Ex Rel. Two Unnamed v. Peterson
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided July 16, 2015No. 2014AP000296-OAPublished
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partShirley S. Abrahamson, J.
¶ 342. (concurring in part, dissenting in part).
Nos. 2014AP296-OA: Original Action: Two Unnamed Petitioners v. Peterson
2014AP417-421-W: Supervisory Writ & Appeal: Schmitz v. Peterson
2013AP2504-2508-W: Supervisory Writ & Review: Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Peterson
¶ 343. The majority opinion decides three different cases related to John Doe proceedings underway in five different counties. These John Doe proceedings share a common objective: To investigate potential violations of Wisconsin's campaign finance law, Wis. Stat. ch. 11 (2011-12).1 The proceedings also share a single John Doe judge,…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- United States v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
- Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.