Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Milwaukee Police Association v. City of Milwaukee

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 2016No. 2014AP000400Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAnn Walsh Bradley, J.

¶ 74. (concurring and dissenting). I agree with the majority that the Police Association is not entitled to relief or damages. Majority op., ¶ 8. Likewise, I agree that the purpose of the Home Rule Amendment is to grant power and self-governance to cities and villages, providing them with greater autonomy over local affairs. Majority op., ¶ 2.

¶ 75. I write separately, however, because the majority turns that purpose on its head. Instead of freeing municipalities from interference by the legislature when dealing with local affairs, the majority limits the power and restrains the ability of…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
  2. Marmolejo-Campos v. HolderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
  3. Van Gilder v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Flynn v. Department of AdministrationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott WalkerWisconsin Supreme Court · 2014

6 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