The Precedential Value of Seriatim Wisconsin Court of Appeals Opinions

29 May 2014 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

In April we wrote about the Wisconsin Court of Appeals opinions compelling State Senator Jon Erpenbach to produce non-redacted emails under Wisconsin’s Public Records law. Today, the Court of Appeals ordered that the opinions be published. These opinions raise significant questions regarding their own precedential value. 

Judge Mark Gundrum wrote the lead opinion and announced the court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals assigns opinions by lot. Wis. Ct. App. IOP (VI)(4)(i).

Judge Richard Brown concurred but expressed “misgivings” about the result in the case. After lamenting the state of public discourse and political implications of selective redaction, Judge Brown concurred “in the decision that under current law these e-mails are public records subject to release without redaction.”

Judge Paul Reilly concurred “with both of [his] colleagues’ respectful and persuasive discussion of the public policy rationales for and against the release of the records at issue.” But Judge Reilly parted with his colleagues in his analysis.  He believed that the case was “a straightforward, statutory interpretation case.”

Each of the judges made interesting and thoughtful points regarding the role of Wisconsin’s Open Records law in our system of government. What is not clear from the opinions, however, is whether either of the concurring judges joined Judge Gundrum’s opinion. This raises the question:  Are other courts bound by any of the opinions in the case?

Under Wis. Stat. § 752.41(2) “Officially published opinions of the court of appeals shall have statewide precedential effect.” Yet, this must refer only to published majority opinions rather than, e.g., dissents or even concurrences. Published unanimous opinions or published opinions joined by two judges are no doubt precedential. But an opinion not joined by another judge on the panel couldn’t become precedential simply by virtue of the author having drawn the straw to write the first opinion.

Should the opinion have even been published in the first place? Judge Gundrum’s opinion was recommended for publication. Under Wis. Stat. § 809.23(2), the judges “who join in an opinion” make the recommendation regarding publication. How many judges recommended the opinion for publication? 1? 2? 3? Does the fact that Judge Gundrum’s opinion was recommended for publication suggest that it had at least two votes? And was the first concurrence recommended for publication as well, since Judge Reilly concurred in Judge Brown’s discussion? Is Judge Brown’s opinion precedential?

Why does any of this matter? These opinions are not unique. There are any number of opinions in Wisconsin–Court of Appeals and Supreme Court alike–where it is not clear which (if any) of the opinions are precedential. But in Wisconsin, the Supreme Court has determined that statements in its own opinions cannot be dismissed as dicta, Zarder v. Humana Ins. Co., 2010 WI 35, ¶58, 324 Wis. 2d 325, 782 N.W.2d 682; and the Court of Appeals has come to the same conclusion about its own opinions, NCR Corp. v. Transport Ins. Co., 2012 WI App. 108, ¶27, 344 Wis. 2d 494, 823 N.W.2d 532 (Disclosure: Foley & Lardner LLP was counsel in this appeal).

Because precedential opinions carry such weight, it would be helpful for our appellate courts to make clearer which opinions are, in fact, precedential.

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