Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C. v. Galaxy Gaming & Racing Ltd.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 2004No. 02-0359Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partN. Patrick Crooks, J.

¶ 70. (dissenting in part, concurring in part). I disagree with the majority's conclusion that DeWitt did not make a valid settlement offer in this case. Majority op., ¶ 42. Instead, I agree with the court of appeals that DeWitt's offer of settlement was valid and permissible under Wis. Stat. § 807.01(3). Nevertheless, I reach my conclusion based on the plain language of § 807.01(3) instead of the reasonableness test used by the court of appeals. See DeWitt Ross & Stevens v. Galaxy Gaming, 2003 WI App 190, ¶¶ 31-32, 267 Wis. 2d 233, 670 N.W.2d 74.1 also disagree with the majority of the court…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Upthegrove Hardware, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Lumbermans InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1989
  2. Erickson Ex Rel. Wightman v. GundersenCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1994
  3. DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C. v. Galaxy Gaming & Racing Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API