Wingra Redi-Mix, Inc. d/b/a Wingra Stone Company, Petitioner-Respondent-Cross-Appellant-Petitioner,
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, Ho-Chunk Nation, Intervenor-Co-Appellant-Cross-Respondent.
ARGUMENT: April 17, 2018
OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Reported at 377 Wis.2d
727, 902 N.W.2d 808
the petitioner-respondent-cross-appellant-petitioner, there
were briefs filed by Bryan K. Nowicki, John H. Zawadsky,
Brittany Lopez Naleid, Amy L. MacArdy, and Reinhart Boerner
Van Deuren S.C., Milwaukee. There was an oral argument by
Bryan K. Nowicki .
the respondent-appellant-cross-respondent, there was a brief
filed by Thomas C. Bellavia, assistant attorney general, and
Brad D. Schimel, attorney general. There was an oral argument
by Thomas C. Bellavia, assistant attorney general.
the intervenor-co-appellant-cross-respondent, there was a
brief filed by Amanda L. WhiteEagle and Ho-Chunk Nation
Dep't of Justice, Black River Falls, with whom on the
brief were Howard M. Shanker and The Shanker Law Firm, PLC,
Tempe, Arizona. There was an oral argument by Howard M.
The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed by an
equally divided court.
DANIEL KELLY, J., withdrew from participation.
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (concurring).
As I did last term in Smith v. Kleynerman,
write separately to preserve institutional and historical
In the instant case, the court is equally divided on the
question of whether the unpublished decision of the court of
appeals should be affirmed or reversed. The per
curiam opinion does not list the names and votes of the
In Kleynerman, an opinion issued on March 21, 2017,
I catalogued 115 of this court's cases from 1885 through
2016 in which the names and votes of the participating
justices were presented and 26 cases from 1849 through 2016
in which the names and votes of the participating justices
were not presented.
Since Kleynerman, a total of two cases (including
Kleynerman) have resulted in an equally divided
court. The court did not present the names and
votes of the participating justices in either case. In the
instant case and its companion, the court continues to
deviate from the court's historical practice by failing
to present the names and votes of ...