COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 28, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
Before Dykman, Vergeront and Lundsten, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Rudy Nedvidek, Commander of VFW
Post 1530, and Tom Hundt, President of Vietnam Era Veterans, appeal from a
judgment that dismisses their complaint against two ex-chancellors of the
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, the ex-president of the
¶2 In 1945 the City of
¶3 In November, 2005 the UW Board of Regents adopted a resolution renaming the stadium Roger Harring Stadium and renaming the field and the surrounding athletic areas Memorial Field. Nedvidek and Hundt responded by commencing this action for a judgment declaring the three name changes void. They alleged that the 2000 and 2001 renaming decisions were void because they (1) violated Wisconsin’s open meetings and public records laws, (2) violated UW policies and regulations regarding the naming of UW facilities, and (3) were the product of malfeasance by the Board of Regents and Lyall in supervising Kuipers and Hastad. They alleged that the 2005 decision was void because the Board of Regents violated UW procedures, set forth in Board Resolution 96.1, for naming UW property.
¶4 The defendants moved to dismiss, and the trial court granted
the motion on standing and mootness.
However, in reaching its decision the court considered facts outside of
the pleadings. We therefore review the
case using summary judgment methodology.
See Wis. Stat. § 802.06(2)(b) (2005-06)[1]
(if a party moves to dismiss a complaint, and the court considers matters
outside the pleading, the motion is treated as one for summary judgment). Our review is therefore de novo. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136
¶5 Nedvidek and Hundt have no standing to challenge the Board of
Regents’ 2005 decision. Standing
requires that a party has suffered or is threatened with an injury. Norquist v. Zeuske, 211
¶6 Standing also requires that the injury be to a legally protectable
interest.
¶7 Because Nedvidek and Hundt have no standing to challenge the 2005 decision, all claims concerning the 2000 and 2001 decisions are moot. The present names attached to the UW-La Crosse facilities derive from the 2005 decision of the Board of Regents. Consequently, a judgment declaring the earlier decisions void serves no purpose in resolving the naming controversy. The stadium would continue to be called Roger Harring Stadium. See State ex rel. Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, ¶3, 233 Wis. 2d 685, 608 N.W.2d 425. (issues are moot when their resolution would have no practical effect on the underlying controversy).
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.
[1] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2005-06 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] We held in abeyance, pending our decision, the respondents’ motion to strike portions of the non-party brief filed by Family Radio, Inc. We have not considered the specified portions of the non-party brief in deciding the appeal. We therefore deny the motion as unnecessary.
In an unrelated matter, the appellant has filed a document entitled, “Motion That Board of Regents Brent Smith Acted as a Proponent of UWL Chancellor Hastad’s Renaming of Veterans Memorial Stadium.” The document seeks a ruling concerning the conduct of Regent Brent Smith. The respondents oppose the motion because Smith is not a defendant in this action and the motion relies on items that are not part of the circuit court record. For the reasons explained by the respondents, we deny the motion.
On February 25, 2008, the appellants filed an additional document they entitled a “motion” but which is actually a supplemental brief containing additional arguments on the merits of their appeal. The respondent opposes the appellant’s argument concerning Robert’s Rules of Order because it was not made in the circuit court. We have not considered this document in deciding the appeal because it is not timely and not authorized by our briefing rules.