ENEMAN v. RICHTER

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Case Nos.: 96-2893, 96-2895, 96-2916, 96-2917, 96-2937, 96-2938, 96-2939.

Attorney(S)

For all the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners there were joint briefs by Lester A. Pines and Cullen, Weston, Pines Bach, Madison; Richard F. Rice and Fox Fox, Madison; Mark L. Thomsen and Cannon Dunphy, S.C., Brookfield and oral argument by Mark Thomsen Lester A. Pines. For the defendants-respondents the cause was argued by John J. Glinski, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general. Amicus curiae brief was filed by Edward E. Robinson and Warshafsky, Rotter, Tarnoff, Reinhart Bloch, S.C., Milwaukee for the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Judges

¶ 1. PER CURIAM.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Case Nos.: 96-2893, 96-2895, 96-2916, 96-2917, 96-2937, 96-2938, 96-2939.

Attorney(S)

For all the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners there were joint briefs by Lester A. Pines and Cullen, Weston, Pines Bach, Madison; Richard F. Rice and Fox Fox, Madison; Mark L. Thomsen and Cannon Dunphy, S.C., Brookfield and oral argument by Mark Thomsen Lester A. Pines. For the defendants-respondents the cause was argued by John J. Glinski, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general. Amicus curiae brief was filed by Edward E. Robinson and Warshafsky, Rotter, Tarnoff, Reinhart Bloch, S.C., Milwaukee for the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Judges

¶ 1. PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

ERIKA ENEMAN AND AMY NADLER, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-PETITIONERS v. PAT RICHTER, SUSAN RISELING, DAVID WILLIAMS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. PER MAR SECURITY RESEARCH, OXFORD HEALTH PLANS (CONNECTICUT), INC., DEFENDANTS.[No. 96-2893] TARA L. HARRISON, GARY HARRISON AND LOUISE HARRISON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-PETITIONERS

¶ 1. PER CURIAM.

The court is equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse the decision of the court of appeals. Justice Donald W. Steinmetz, Justice William A. Bablitch, and Justice Jon P. Wilcox would affirm; Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, Justice N. Patrick Crooks, and Justice David T. Prosser would reverse. Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson did not participate.

¶ 2. Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments