2009 WI 66
|
Supreme Court of |
|
|
|
|
Case No.: |
2007AP203 |
|
Complete Title: |
|
|
|
Michael S. Polsky, as receiver for Communications Products Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant, v. Daniel E. Virnich and Jack M. Moores, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Respondents. |
|
|
|
|
|
ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS |
|
|
|
|
Opinion Filed: |
July 7, 2009 |
|
Submitted on Briefs: |
|
|
Oral Argument: |
January 7, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Appeal: |
|
|
|
Court: |
Circuit |
|
County: |
Grant |
|
Judge: |
Michael Kirchman
|
|
|
|
Justices: |
|
|
|
Concurred: |
|
|
Dissented: |
|
|
Not Participating: |
ROGGENSACK, J., did not participate. |
|
|
|
Attorneys: |
|
For the plaintiff-respondent-cross appellant there were
briefs by Robert J. Kasieta, Andrew J.
Parrish, and the Kasieta Legal Group,
LLC,
For the defendants-appellants-cross respondents there
were briefs by Donald K. Schott, Valerie
L. Bailey-Rihn, James Richgels, and Quarles
& Brady LLP,
An amicus curiae brief was filed (in the court of
appeals) by Thomas J. Arenz and Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC,
An amicus curiae brief was filed by John E. Knight, James E. Bartzen, Kirsten E. Spira, and Boardman, Suhr, Curry & Field LLP, Madison, on behalf of the Wisconsin Bankers Association, and oral argument by John E. Knight.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by William Haus and Haus, Roman and Banks, LLP, Madison, on behalf of the Sheet Metal Workers International Local Union No. 565.
2009
WI 66
notice
This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Circuit Court for
¶1 PER CURIAM. The court is equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse the judgment of the circuit court. Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, and Justice N. Patrick Crooks would affirm. Justice David T. Prosser, Jr., Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler, and Justice Michael J. Gableman would reverse. Justice Patience Drake Roggensack did not participate.
¶2 When a certification or bypass results in a tie vote by this
court, the better course of action is to vacate our decision to accept
certification or bypass and remand the cause to the court of appeals. State v. Richard Knutson, Inc., 191
¶3 Accordingly, we vacate our order granting certification and remand to the court of appeals.
By the Court.—The order granting certification is vacated and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals.