Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Godoy Ex Rel. Gramling v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 14, 2009No. 2006AP2670Published

1Concurrence

*122ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.

¶ 56. {concurring). I write a concurrence separate from the lead opinion to address an issue neither raised nor advanced by the parties in this case. Instead, it is a policy determination advanced by Justice Prosser's concurrence below. See Justice Prosser's concurrence (joined by Justices Ziegler and Gableman).

¶ 57. The concurrence below mistakes judicial restraint for intransigence. Challenging the lead opinion to "muster[] the intellectual firepower to defend" our reliance on the consumer contemplation test, the concurrence wants to square off and impose an agenda it…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Dippel v. ScianoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Wangen v. Ford Motor Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Collins v. Eli Lilly & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Morden v. Continental AGWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Northridge Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1991

41 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