La Crosse Tribune v. Circuit Court for La Crosse County: Creating a Trick Box for an Award of Attorney Fees

15 March 2012 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog
Author(s): Thomas L. Shriner Jr

In La Crosse Tribune v. Circuit Court for La Crosse County, No. 10AP3120 (Wis. Ct. App., Mar. 15, 2012), the Court of Appeals left a newspaper seeking a statutory fee award for its success in obtaining access to public records in a trick box with no apparent way out.

The case began when a defendant found not guilty of homicide by reason of insanity in the mid-‘80s was ordered conditionally released.  This triggered preparation of a release plan, which the circuit court considered and then sealed, along with related documents, as it thought the mental health laws required.  The local paper disagreed and sought access under the public records law to four documents.  Here’s where the problem arose.  The public records law clearly applies to records in the custody of a circuit court, Wis. Stat. § 19.32(1), and dictates that the requester’s remedy (apparently exclusive) upon being denied access is to “bring an action for mandamus asking a court to order release of the record.”  § 19.37(1)(a).  Success in that action entitles the requester to an award of attorney fees.  Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2)(a).

Normally, the requester would seek mandamus in an original action in the circuit court.  Wis. Stat. §§ 783.01, 801.02(5).  But circuit courts lack supervisory jurisdiction over other circuit courts, Eau Claire Leader-Telegram v. Barrett, 146 Wis. 2d 647, 431 N.W.2d 741 (Ct. App. 1988), and the court of appeals, which has supervisory jurisdiction over circuit courts, Wis. Const. art. VII, § 5(3), and in which the newspaper accordingly filed its request for mandamus relief, lacks original jurisdiction to entertain a mandamus action.  See State ex rel. Swan v. Elections Bd., 133 Wis. 2d 87, 394 N.W.2d 732 (1986).  Because the paper had not commenced an original mandamus action, the court of appeals (which granted it access to one of the records sought) held that it could not recover the fees to which it would be entitled if it had complied with the exclusive statutory remedy (which it could not do).

Or so the court of appeals held.  The court’s logic seems less than compelling. Section 19.37(1)(a) doesn’t use the word “original” in describing the “action for mandamus” that a requester must bring, and the court of appeals does have original jurisdiction, under the constitutional provision cited, to issue a writ of mandamus to a circuit court.  State ex rel. Staples v. DH&SS, 130 Wis. 2d 285, 387 N.W.2d 118 (Ct. App. 1986).  But the decision is recommended for publication, so it likely will soon be the law that a prevailing party in a proceeding to gain access to public records in the custody of a circuit court may not recover its fees.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services