Summary of Opinion — Felder v. Casey (Per Curiam Order)

Factual and Procedural Background

The caption identifies Bobby Felder as Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Respondent and Cross Petitioner and lists Duane Casey and others as Defendants-Respondents and Cross Appellants-Petitioners. The matter was before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Docket No. 85-1344, filed August 23, 1988, and was originally reported at 139 Wis.2d 614, 408 N.W.2d 19 (1987). The per curiam order states that this court's decision reversing the court of appeals had itself been reversed by the United States Supreme Court. In response, the court ordered that the mandate filed on June 24, 1987, be vacated and that the decision of the court of appeals be affirmed. The order also states that no costs are allowed to any party in this court. A footnote indicates motions for reconsideration were granted and that this order was withdrawn by a per curiam order of November 15, 1988 (see Volume 146 Wis.2d).

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning is succinct: because the United States Supreme Court reversed this court's prior decision that had reversed the court of appeals, the basis for this court's mandate was nullified. Consequently, the court vacated the mandate filed June 24, 1987, and, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal, affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. The order also disposed of costs by denying them to any party.

Holding and Implications

The mandate filed on June 24, 1987, is vacated, and the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Direct consequences: the court's prior reversal is undone by the effect of the United States Supreme Court's action, the court of appeals' decision stands, and no costs are allowed to any party in this court. The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or announce a new precedent.