Wisconsin Supreme Court Sets Tight Standard of Proof for Conspiracy to Misappropriate Trade Secrets

Published on | Permalink

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently clarified the evidentiary requirements for establishing a conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets under Wis. Stat. § 134.90.  See North Highland Inc. v. Jefferson Machine & Tooling Inc. et al., 2017 WI 75, 898 N.W.2d 74 (2017).  In a narrow 4-3 decision written by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, the Court concluded that such a claim may proceed to trial only if there is evidence establishing the defendant had direct knowledge of the misappropriation.

North Highland Inc. is a small manufacturing company that served as a vendor for Bay Plastics, a distributor of customized plastic parts.  Dwain Trewyn worked as a business generator for North Highland.  His duties included submitting bids for potential projects.  When Frederick Wells, Bay Plastics’ owner, decided to form his own manufacturing company, Jefferson Machine & Tool Inc., he approached Trewyn about joining the new venture.  Trewyn became a 25% owner of Jefferson, even as he continued to work at North Highland.

A dispute arose when Jefferson and North Highland submitted competing bids to manufacture stainless steel trolley assemblies for Tyson Foods Inc.  Trewyn submitted North Highland’s confidential bid for the project. Then, he submitted a slightly lower bid on behalf of Jefferson. Tyson awarded the contract to Jefferson, until North Highland threatened to sue and the deal fell apart.

North Highland sued Trewyn, Wells, Jefferson, and Bay Plastics, alleging, among other theories, that Wells and Trewyn had conspired to misappropriate North Highland’s trade secrets (namely, the amount of the Tyson bid).  After Trewyn filed for bankruptcy and settled North Highland’s claims against him, the circuit court granted Wells’ summary judgment motion and dismissed the claims against Wells.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims against Wells. The court concluded that (1) North Highland had failed to set forth any facts establishing that Trewyn and Wells conspired to misappropriate North Highland’s trade secrets, and (2) North Highland had not established that the amount of its bid qualified as a trade secret under Wis. Stat. § 134.90(1)(c).  At North Highland’s request, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Writing for the majority, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley affirmed the dismissal.  Like the lower courts, the Supreme Court determined that the evidentiary record did not support the allegation that Wells had conspired with Trewyn to misappropriate North Highland trade secrets allegedly protected by statute.  Id. ¶ 39.  While it was undisputed that Trewyn had formulated the Tyson bids for both North Highland and Jefferson, the Court was unwilling to permit a jury to say that meant that Wells himself must have known the amount of North Highland’s bid.  Id. ¶ 41.  The Court cited repeated deposition testimony from both Wells and Trewyn that (1) Wells was not aware Trewyn had submitted a Tyson bid on North Highland’s behalf, (2) Wells was not involved in formulating Jefferson’s bid, and (3) Wells had not created Jefferson to compete against North Highland.  Id. ¶¶ 11-15, 30-33.

In the face of this “unrebutted” deposition testimony, the Court concluded that “[t]here are simply no facts or reasonable inferences derived from the facts to support such an allegation [of trade secret misappropriation against Wells].”  Id. ¶ 42.  Having found no evidence of misappropriation, the Court had no need to decide whether the amount of a confidential project bid qualifies as a “trade secret” under Wis. Stat. §134.90(1)(c).

In a detailed dissent, Chief Justice Roggensack noted that § 134.90(2) extends liability to anyone who “knows or had reason to know” about misappropriation, such that circumstantial evidence of an actor’s knowledge should be enough to prove a violation.  Id. ¶¶ 109-110 & n.38.  Applying this standard, the dissent referenced additional deposition testimony from Wells that (1) Wells worked with Trewyn to develop Jefferson’s bid, (2) Wells knew Trewyn continued to work at North Highland during the Tyson bidding process, (3) Wells recognized that North Highland and Jefferson were competitors, and (4) Wells was aware that Trewyn’s employment contract with North Highland did not contain  a non-compete provision.  Id. ¶¶ 56-61, 109.  Given this additional testimony, the dissent argued that the evidentiary record presented factual issues appropriate for a jury to resolve.

In the wake of North Highland, entities considering suit against former employees and/or competitors for violations of Wis. Stat. § 134.90 should evaluate what admissible evidence ties their competitors’ conduct to the alleged misappropriation.  The majority was unwilling to allow North Highland to extend liability beyond its own employee (Trewyn), who clearly was the primary actor, despite Wells’ presumed awareness of Trewyn’s business conflicts.  Accordingly, before undertaking expensive litigation under Wisconsin trade-secrets law, companies should be prepared to establish a clear, strong, direct link between their targeted defendants and the alleged misappropriation.

Seventh Circuit Clarifies Applicability of Economic Loss Doctrine to Liability Insurance Coverage

Published on | Permalink

The Seventh Circuit recently clarified the potential impact of Wisconsin’s Economic Loss Doctrine on the availability of liability insurance coverage for commercial insureds facing defective product claims.  See Haley et al. v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co. et al., Nos. 16-3563 & 16-3648 (7th Cir. 2017).  In holding that coverage was available for the defective residential windows claims at issue in this case, the Seventh Circuit concluded that Wisconsin common law requires a case-by-case analysis to determine liability insurance coverage for underlying claims subject to the Economic Loss Doctrine, thus rejecting the more broad proposition that any claim subject to the doctrine is per se not covered.

The Economic Loss Doctrine is a common law rule that has been adopted by the Wisconsin courts to allocate monetary risks arising from the purchase of commercial goods between buyers and sellers.  The rule eliminates a purchaser’s access to tort-based causes of actions to recover purely economic losses from the manufacturer of a defective product.  Injuries to people or third-party property continue to be redressable in tort, but purely economic claims (i.e., loss of economic value of the product itself and/or consequential monetary loss arising from the product’s failure to function as expected) can be compensated only under contract law. 

Wisconsin courts also have expanded the Economic Loss Doctrine by adopting the integrated-system rule. Under that rule, when a defective product has been incorporated with other products to function cohesively as an “integrated system,” the Economic Loss Doctrine applies to preclude tort-based claims for damage to any other component of that system.  See, e.g., Wausau Tile, Inc. v. County Concrete Corp., 226 Wis. 2d 235, 249-53 (1999).

In March 2016, the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied the Economic Loss Doctrine and the correlating integrated-system rule to hold that no liability insurance coverage was available for defective product claims brought against a pharmaceutical supplement supplier.  See Wis. Pharmacal Co. v. Neb. Cultures of Cal., Inc., 367 Wis. 2d 221 (2016).  In that case, Pharmacal was sued for producing defective daily supplement tablets; the tablets as a whole were alleged to be defective because they contained an incorrect probiotic bacterial species. Pharmacal had obtained that probiotic species from a downstream supplier and combined it with other ingredients when formulating the defective tablets.

Pharmacal’s liability insurance policies included standard coverage for damage to other property, but excluded coverage for damage to Pharmacal’s own property.  The Pharmacal Court, citing the Economic Loss Doctrine and the integrated-system rule, concluded that no coverage was available.  The Court reasoned that, although only one ingredient used in the supplement tablets was defective, the ingredients were combined into an inseparable integrated system.  As a result, damage to any component of the tablets was considered damage to Pharmacal’s own property.

Based on the Pharmacal decision, Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork’s insurers argued that they had no obligation to defend the defective windows claims at issue. They started from the proposition that in prior decisions Wisconsin courts have applied the Economic Loss Doctrine to defective windows claims, holding that windows form an integrated system with the other structural components of a house.  They then argued that, just as Pharmacal’s insurer had no duty to cover damage to an integrated system, they had no duty to cover the alleged damages to any component of the plaintiffs’ homes.

The Seventh Circuit rejected the broad proposition that Pharmacal required an integrated system analysis under all circumstances.  In doing so, the Court noted that whether insurance coverage exists depends instead on the nature of the underlying plaintiff’s alleged loss.  In contrast to the claims at issue in Pharmacal, where the plaintiff sought to replace the supplement tablets entirely because the defective ingredient was indistinguishable from the non-defective ingredients, here the class-action plaintiff homeowners were seeking repairs to identifiable components of the houses other than the defective windows themselves.  The Seventh Circuit accordingly concluded that the resulting damage to the drywall, wood framing, and brick surrounding the defective windows constituted damage to “other property” under the policy language, thus triggering the insurers’ coverage obligations notwithstanding that the claims were subject to Wisconsin’s Economic Loss Doctrine.

Assuming the Seventh Circuit has interpreted the Pharmacal decision correctly, Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork serves as a significant clarification regarding the impact of the Economic Loss Doctrine on liability insurance coverage under Wisconsin law.  As a result, commercial insureds facing product defect claims alleging damages to distinguishable components of integrated systems should be able to assert the Economic Loss Doctrine as an absolute defense to any tort-based causes of action without in turn eliminating their liability insurers’ obligation to defend the litigation.

From a practical standpoint, it is also noteworthy that in this case the Western District of Wisconsin federal court denied the insurers’ request to stay the underlying product defect lawsuit when they intervened to litigate the related insurance coverage issues for the matter.  As a result, the insurers were forced to continue to pay to defend Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork in the ongoing defective windows litigation while simultaneously seeking a ruling that they were not obligated to do so under their liability insurance policies.

Going forward, therefore, insurers may be better off litigating any defense coverage disputes for underlying product defect claims in Wisconsin state courts, where it is standard practice for courts to stay the underlying litigation pending resolution of an insured’s defense obligations and where an insurer may have more success in arguing that the Seventh Circuit inappropriately narrowed the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s holding in Pharmacal.

WI Courts Continue To Limit Criminal Expungement, Even as Legislature Considers Expanding Scope

Published on | Permalink

In May, Representatives Steffer (R-Howard) and Hoyke (D-Milwaukee) introduced 2017 AB 331 in the Wisconsin Assembly. The proposed legislation would change current Wisconsin law to make expungement available to those previously convicted of a crime or who were ineligible for expungement at the time their case was resolved, and it would expand the number of defendants who can seek expungement. However, this legislative proposal is at odds with the current trend in Wisconsin courts interpreting existing expunction law.

Wisconsin’s current expungement statute, Wis. Stat. § 973.015, allows courts, at the time of sentencing, to order a defendant’s conviction to be expunged after “successful completion” of a sentence, if the defendant is under age twenty-five at the time of conviction and the offense has a maximum period of imprisonment of six years or less. This statute gives the court a chance to “shield youthful offenders from some of the harsh consequences of criminal convictions.” State v. Matasek, 2014 WI 27, ¶42.

The combination of Wisconsin’s Open Records Law and the availability of court records online through the Consolidated Court Automation Program (CCAP) means that anyone with Internet access—read: nearly everyone—can easily obtain criminal history and case history from any Wisconsin court. Without expungement, convictions (whether of the original charge or a lesser, amended charge), charges that do not lead to convictions, and dismissed charges are all viewable by prospective employers, admissions officers, landlords, in-laws, etc. This access has practical consequences. For example, the American Bar Association has identified 38,000 statutes that impose collateral consequences for those with criminal convictions—of those, nearly half negatively impact employment opportunities. State v. Ozuna, 2017 WI 64, ¶ 39 (A.W. Bradley, J., dissenting).

While the purpose and scope of Wis. Stat. § 973.015 seem straightforward at first glance, the law contains ambiguities that courts have interpreted to limit access to expungement. Recent court cases have featured debates over what “expunge” and “successful completion” mean within the statutory context. The judicial trend has been to answer these questions in favor of narrowing the availability and scope of expungement under Wisconsin law.

The committee notes to Wis. Stat. § 973.015 define “expunge” as “to strike or obliterate from the record all references to the defendant’s name and identity.” Comm. Note to Wis. Stat. § 973.015(3) (citing 67 Atty. Gen. 301). But recent decisions have limited the efficacy of expungement in practice. Yes, the criminal record is sealed, with access barred absent a court order—but the police and some other governmental entities can still view the arrest. The court records still exist despite being removed from CCAP and can still be accessed by some individuals. Additionally, the record is still accessible in the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s Crime Information Bureau (CIB) database and the Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the federal Department of Justice’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database.

Moreover, under State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, courts can use information from judicial records, Department of Corrections files, and police reports relating to a prior, expunged conviction to formulate the sentence for a subsequent conviction, even though the record of the earlier conviction was “obliterate[d].” The Leitner Court clarified that, while § 973.015 bars formal consideration of a prior, expunged conviction, it does not otherwise “shield a misdemeanant from all of the future consequences of the facts underlying a[n expunged] record of a conviction,” so long as “those facts are not obtained from expunged court records.” Leitner, 2002 WI 77,38.

In one recent decision, the Supreme Court expanded even further the acceptable use at sentencing of underlying facts from an expunged record. In State v. Allen, 2017 WI 7 (Feb. 9, 2017), the criminal background check contained in the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report detailed the incident behind the defendant’s ostensibly obliterated record: “This incident involved a fight with another boy at high school and he was charged because the other boy lost a tooth in the fight.” Id., ¶10. Although the report acknowledged that the record was “officially expunged,” the circuit court sentenced more harshly based on the fact of prior offense, noting that Allen “had an opportunity to learn something from that [occasion].” Id., ¶12. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court, holding that, even where a record is expunged, many (if not all) of the incriminatory details are still available for a sentencing court’s review and may factor into the court’s subsequent sentencing decision.

In another recent decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court further limited the availability of expungement. State v. Ozuna, 2017 WI 64, addressed another ambiguity in Wis. Stat. § 973.015: where expungement automatically occurs upon the successful completion of a probation sentence, who decides what “successful” means? Under the terms of his plea agreement, Ozuna’s convictions for criminal damage to property and disorderly conduct were to be expunged once he successfully completed probation. At the end of Ozuna’s probation, the DOC filed a “Verification of Satisfaction of Probation Conditions for Expungement” with the circuit court, indicating that Ozuna had “successfully completed” his term of probation. Notwithstanding the DOC’s determination, the circuit court disregarded the DOC form and denied Ozuna’s expungement. The circuit court based its decision on Ozuna’s receipt of an underage drinking citation—in violation of a no-alcohol probation rule.

The question on appeal was narrow: had Ozuna successfully completed probation, entitling him to expungement? Ozuna’s brief to the Supreme Court pointed out that, “upon successful completion of the sentence the detaining or probationary authority shall issue a certificate of discharge which shall be forwarded to the court of record and which shall have the effect of expunging the record.” Under the statute, he argued, the expungement process is ‘self-executing’ once the probation officer determines the sentence is complete.

Ozuna relied on State v. Hemp, 2014 WI 129, and State v. Matasek, 2014 WI 27. Under Hemp, a probation officer was given discretion to determine whether or not probation had been successfully completed. Moreover, once the officer determined the sentence was completed, expungement would be automatic, or self-executing. Under Matasek, the decision of expungement should be made at the sentencing stage, rather than after completion of the sentence. In other words, the circuit court’s role is before the sentence is served, and the probation officer’s role is after. In response, the State claimed that Ozuna had not successfully completed his probation sentence, differenting him from the defendants in Hemp and Matasek, who had done so.

The Supreme Court sided with the State. Its reasoning was simple. The statute says a record can be expunged “upon successful completion” of the sentence—here, probation. Successfully completing his probation required Ozuna to follow all of its requirements. Because Ozuna did not follow the no-drinking conditions of his probation, he did not successfully complete his probation. It did not matter that the DOC indicated otherwise. Nor did it matter that expungement is typically self-executing. What controlled the outcome of the case was that “Ozuna did not meet the criteria for expungement, because he did not satisfy the conditions of his probation.” 2017 WI 64, ¶19.

While the courts have consistently limited expungement, the legislature continues to consider changes in the opposite direction. A series of failed legislative efforts last session would have expanded the expungement statute. AB 1005 would have allowed defendants to petition for expungement of records related to a criminal prosecution after either acquittal or dismissal of charges. AB 1004 would have required expungement of records related to a criminal prosecution where the defendant was found not guilty or the conviction was reversed on appeal. And AB 1008 would have allowed courts to consider expungement after a defendant served their sentence, rather than only at the sentencing hearing.

In light of these failed measures, the prospects for 2017 AB 331 remain unclear. Unlike last session’s proposals, AB 331 has bipartisan sponsorship, but that does not mean it will gain sufficient support to become law. In the meantime, while the expungement statute appears straightforward, defendants should be cautious, bearing in mind judicially imposed limitations.

Law clerk Charles Ureña assisted in researching and writing this post.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Decision Raises Fair Dealership Law Questions Beyond Municipal Liability

Published on | Permalink

The primary issue in Benson v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 65, is clearly the question of whether the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (“WFDL”) reaches contractual relationships involving municipalities. As discussed here, this is an issue of first impression, and the Court’s holding has broad implications.

There are, however, additional aspects of the decision worth consideration. Three in particular bear mention.

First, the Wisconsin Supreme Court had not heard a WFDL case in a while. In the interim, the composition of the Court changed substantially, and that turnover yielded a majority oriented toward a more free-market paradigm. Some commentators have wondered how the WFDL would be applied by the current Court. Benson suggests that in many respects not much has changed. The Benson majority, joined by all five Justices perceived as more conservative, follows settled law granting the WFDL a broad construction. (Indeed, by holding that municipalities are covered by the WFDL, the majority significantly expands the law’s scope.) And it firmly forecloses arguments that a party can contract around the WFDL, nullifying a contractual provision that the City of Madison cited as exculpatory. See 2017 WI 65, ¶48.

Second, the Court shed a little light on the doctrinal Gordian knot at the heart of most WFDL litigation. The vast majority of WFDL cases turn on the question of whether the parties’ relationship constitutes a “community of interest.” This has always been a vague standard. Three decades ago, the Court identified two “guideposts” for this inquiry: “continuing financial interest” and “interdependence.” Ziegler Co. v. Rexnord, Inc., 139 Wis. 2d 593, 604-05, 407 N.W.2d 873 (1987). The Ziegler Court also identified ten, non-exclusive facets of a relationship that might shed light on one or both guideposts. See id. at 606. Lower courts have been somewhat vexed by applying the various facets—and others that might seem relevant in individual cases—to the guideposts. Benson provides some wiggle room, noting that the Ziegler facets need not all be measured in every case, because “it is more accurate to say that some or all ‘may’ be considered; the factors are meant to be a helpful aid in addressing the overriding community of interest question, not an unwieldy burden.” Benson, 2017 WI 65, n.15.

Third, the Court’s newest Justice, Dan Kelly, wrote a separate concurring opinion to, in his words, address “one persnickety point.” Id., ¶64 (Kelly, J., concurring). But his point is not a minor one: he disagrees with the majority about what goods and services should be considered the subject of the contract that binds the parties in a dealership. Justice Kelly believes that only those goods and services that belong to the grantor (here, the City of Madison) can be considered part of the dealership, while the majority opinion cites both those and additional goods and services provided wholly by the dealer (here, the golf pros). See id., ¶¶65-66.  The fact that Justice Kelly raised this issue and that none of the other five Justices in the majority joined his concurrence can be read to suggest that a majority of the Court—at least four Justices—disagree with his reading of the statute and believe that a dealer can bring its own goods and services into a dealership relationship. That issue was not decisive here, but it could loom large in a future dispute about application of the WFDL (and in calculating damages due to the golf pros on remand).

Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds Municipalities Are Subject to Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law

Published on | Permalink

In a shocking decision that will increase the cost of local governance and limit the ability of local governments to control their own affairs, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held last week that the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (“WFDL”) applies to municipalities. Benson v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 65. The remainder of this post discusses the municipal law implications of the decision; a companion post addresses additional aspects of the decision of interest to those who rely upon or follow the evolution of the WFDL.

The City of Madison owns four municipal golf courses. Beginning in 1977, the City contracted with golf pros, to operate, manage and provide services at the City-owned courses. Under the contracts, the golf pros were each responsible for one course, at which they collected green fees, hired and managed attendants, supervised golfing, operated the clubhouse and pro shop, sold concessions, and gave lessons; City employees handled all physical maintenance of the golf courses. On October 8, 2012 (less than 90 days before the most recent contracts’ expiration date of December 31, 2012), the City informed the golf pros that it would not be renewing their contracts.

The golf pros filed a lawsuit against the City. The lawsuit alleged that the City failed to comply with the WFDL in ending its contractual relationships with them and sought damages. Briefly, the WFDL, adopted in 1974, governs “dealerships,” which are specially defined contracts entered into between “grantors” and “dealers.” Wis. Stat. §§ 135.02-135.025. The WFDL prohibits grantors from terminating dealership contracts without good cause, Wis. Stat. § 135.03, and requires 90 days’ notice prior to termination, Wis. Stat. § 135.04. If a grantor violates the WFDL, a dealer may bring an action against such grantor for damages. Wis. Stat. § 135.06.

The circuit court dismissed the golf pros’ lawsuit on summary judgment, concluding that the relationships between the golf pros and the City did not constitute “dealerships” protected by the WFDL, Wis. Stat. § 135.02(3). When the golf pros appealed, the court of appeals affirmed. The golf pros appealed again, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, answering two principal questions in the affirmative: first, whether the WFDL applies to the City at all; and second, whether the relationships between the golf pros and the City are “dealerships” under the WFDL.

First, the Court determined that the WFDL applies to the City. To determine this issue, the Court started with the defined terms of the statute. The WFDL defines “dealer” as “a person who is a grantee of a dealership situated in this state,” Wis. Stat. § 135.02(2), and “dealership” as “[a] contract… between 2 or more persons, by which a person is granted the right to sell or distribute goods or services, or use a trade name, trademark, service mark, logotype, advertising or other commercial symbol, in which there is a community of interest in the business of offering, selling or distributing goods or services at wholesale, retail, by [contract],” Wis. Stat. § 135.02(3)(a). Because the terms dealer and dealership require a “person” to be a party to the contract, the Court then turned to the first issue—whether the City is a “person” under the WFDL. Again, the Court looked to the definitions in the WFDL and found that the WFDL’s definition of “person” included “corporation or other entity.” Wis. Stat. § 135.02(6). The Court concluded that because the City is a municipal corporation, it falls within the category of “corporation” and therefore qualifies as a person subject to the WFDL.

Second, the Court held that the contractual relationships between the golf pros and the City are “dealerships” under the WFDL. The Court found that all three statutory elements for a dealership were satisfied: (1) a contract between two or more persons existed; (2) the contract granted the golf pros the right to sell or distribute a City service (here, access to the golf courses); and (3) the golf pros’ business of selling the City’s services created a “community of interest.”

In dissent, Justices Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley argued that the Fair Dealership Law should not apply because the City is not a “person” under the WFDL. Notably, the dissent emphasized that the majority’s analysis “neglects to address the relationship of the Dealership Law, municipal constitutional and statutory home rule, and other statutes governing governmental entities.” 2017 WI 65, ¶136.

The majority’s analysis failed to consider the City’s home-rule authority at all. This case continues the trend in Wisconsin cases of ignoring entirely, or limiting the extent of, municipal home rule. As the dissent notes, this decision has far-reaching consequences.

Contracts municipalities thought were terminable at will or on a specific date now may not be terminable without giving 90 days notice and having good cause. Lacking the funds to continue a contractual relationship does not fall within the WFDL’s definition of good cause. Thus, if a municipality does not have sufficient funds to renew a contract, it may face the choice of either cutting essential services or getting sued by its golf pros or other contractors for violation of the WFDL.

In considering future contracts, municipalities will need to assess whether their contractual relationships might be considered dealerships and if there is a way to avoid that status. The municipality may decide not to provide certain services rather than take the chance of being bound under the WFDL.

Until or unless the law is changed in light of this decision, the Benson case will certainly give municipalities pause when considering privatizing municipal functions.

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Wisconsin Takings Case, Adopts Complex Test, and Approves Merger Clauses

Published on | Permalink

The U.S. Supreme Court decided a major regulatory takings case last week, ending a Wisconsin land-use battle that lasted more than a dozen years. See Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214 (U.S. June 23, 2017). It is not common for a case to jump from an unpublished, non-precedential opinion in a state intermediate court of appeals to the nation’s highest court. Even less often does a local case provide an opportunity to resolve a long-standing doctrinal puzzle that has stymied courts and litigants for decades. Murr v. Wisconsin was notable, and the Supreme Court’s decision is both interesting and instructive. In particular, the Court’s express endorsement of a zoning provision commonly used in Wisconsin and across the country should set municipal regulators’ minds at ease.

The facts of the Murr case

I have written about the case in detail, summarized the parties’ arguments, and shared my assessment of the oral argument. (Full disclosure: Stafford Rosenbaum submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the Wisconsin Counties Association, the Wisconsin Towns Association, and the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, urging the Supreme Court not to reach the constitutional issue at the heart of the case. The views in this post are my own; they go beyond the arguments expressed in the amicus brief and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my clients.)

The essential facts are these: The Murrs who litigated this case were the second generation to own the property in question. Their parents purchased two lots along the Lower St. Croix River, in northwestern Wisconsin, more than fifty years ago. They built a small cabin on one lot and transferred ownership to their family business. A couple of years later, they purchased the adjacent lot, which they kept in their own names and never built on. In the 1990s, the parents transferred the land to their children, bringing the two adjacent lots into common ownership for the first time.

This mattered a great deal because, in the intervening years, the federal, state, and local governments all adopted laws to protect the river’s scenic beauty. The regulations limited development to those lots with at least one acre of land, excluding the river’s floodplain and the slope of the bluffs that tower above the river. Neither of the Murrs’ lots, though approximately 1.25 acres each, had enough buildable space to meet the development requirements on its own. The regulations addressed this fairly common issue through two complementary provisions. The first grandfathered in any property owners who had purchased their land prior to the regulations; they could still build, even if their lots lacked one acre of buildable space. The second merged adjacent lots without sufficient buildable space if those lots came under common ownership.

Here, when the two adjacent lots passed to the second generation, they came under common ownership and therefore merged as a matter of law. When the Murrs later sought a zoning variance to sell the empty lot and use the proceeds to improve the cabin on the other lot, the County said no. The Murrs alleged that the state and county regulations amounted to an uncompensated taking of their property in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Murrs’ takings claim was rejected by the trial court, the state appellate court, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.

The applicable legal framework

The Constitution provides that private property cannot “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const., amend. V. The framers and early courts were focused on physical appropriations of property for public use (to build a road, for example). But for almost a century courts have recognized that regulations restricting an owner’s use of property can amount to a compensable taking. How and when regulations impose enough of a burden to require compensation has been a vexing question. In response, the Supreme Court has provided two tests. Where a regulation deprives the owner of all economically beneficial use of the property, that is a taking. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Comm’n, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). Even where a regulation is less invasive, it can still require compensation, based on a balancing of several factors, including the economic impact of the regulation, the character of the regulation, and the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations for the property. See Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).

Under either test, however, there is a predicate question: How do courts define the relevant property against which to measure the effects of the regulation at issue? The Murrs complained that the merger provision deprived them of the right to use or sell the vacant lot adjacent to their cabin. When a court considers that alleged deprivation, does it measure the loss against only the vacant lot (in which case it could be seen as a near-total taking) or against the Murrs’ combined riverside properties (in which case it appears to be a smaller loss)? As legal commentators have long discussed, in many cases “the answer to this question may be outcome determinative.” Murr, slip op. at 9.

The prospect that the Murr case would answer this question drew significant interest. The case presented the Court with multiple options:

  • The Murrs argued that the right answer begins and (largely) ends with the lot lines on the property rolls. They conceded that evidence of how the property is actually used might be sufficient to overcome the lot lines in certain instances.

  • The State of Wisconsin argued that the answer is found in the application of state law, including but not limited to the lot lines and, importantly in this case, also including the merger provision.

  • St. Croix County, for its part, argued that multiple factors are relevant, beginning with state property law, but also including the physical characteristics of the property and the economic impact the regulation has on the property.

  • Finally, the federal government, appearing as an amicus curiae (friend of the court), offered an alternative multi-factor balancing test, placing no special weight on state law and instead looking to achieve fairness and justice.

The Murrs obviously argued that their proposed test would favor their taking claim. All of the various governmental entities argued that there was no taking in this case.

The majority opinion

The Court fully adopted St. Croix County’s approach, holding that “the question of the proper parcel in regulatory takings cases cannot be solved by any simple test,” such that “courts must consider a number of factors.” Id. at 11, 20. “These include the treatment of the land under state and local law; the physical characteristics of the land; and the prospective value of the regulated land.” Id. at 11. In doing so, the Court incorporated the factors both the Murrs and the State had offered as bright-line tests, explaining that “courts should give substantial weight to the treatment of the land, in particular how it is bounded or divided, under state and local law,” but also insisted that those factors were, on their own, insufficient. Id. at 12-15.

Notably, the Court also gave a full-throated endorsement to the merger provision that the Murrs challenged, calling it “a legitimate exercise of government power.” Id. The Court rooted its approval in both tradition and efficacy. After noting that merger provisions “originated nearly a century ago” and are now widely used, the Court praised those provisions as a way of “balancing the legitimate goals of regulation with the reasonable expectations of landowners.” Id. at 15-16. The St. Croix County zoning provisions at issue “represent a classic way of doing this: by implementing a merger provision, which combines contiguous substandard lots under common ownership, alongside a grandfather clause, which preserves adjacent substandard lots that are in separate ownership.” Id. While one criticism of balancing tests is that they lack certainty, here the Court clearly mapped one way in which zoning ordinances can strike a judicially sanctioned balance between limiting development and protecting existing property rights.

The dissenting opinions

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the primary dissent, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. (Justice Gorsuch did not participate in the case, which was argued before he joined the Court.) The Roberts dissent adopted the State of Wisconsin’s approach. Chief Justice Roberts did not argue the Murrs should win their suit, but he eschewed the multi-factor test adopted by the majority.

Chief Justice Roberts identified two primary rationales for his position. First, because “[t]he question of who owns what is pretty important,” it follows that “[t]he rules must provide a readily ascertainable definition of the land to which a particular bundle of rights attaches that does not vary depending upon the purpose at issue.” Slip op. at 6 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). On this basis, the dissent decried “[t]he majority’s new, malleable definition of private property” for the takings inquiry. Id. at 2.

Second, Chief Justice Roberts asserted that the majority’s balancing test improperly advantages the government in every takings dispute. Because one factor relevant to defining the property is “the reasonableness of the regulation as applied to the claimant[,] … the government’s regulatory interests will come into play not once, but twice—first when identifying the relevant parcel, and again when determining whether the regulation has placed too great a public burden on that property.” Id. at 9-10. (This is true only for regulations assessed under Penn Central; any per se taking under Lucas will not be subject to the second analysis.)

Ultimately, the Roberts dissent argued, the majority decision “knocks the definition of ‘private property’ loose from its foundation on stable state law rules and throws it into the maelstrom of multiple factors that come into play at the second step of the takings analysis. The result: The majority’s new framework compromises the Takings Clause as a barrier between individuals and the press of the public interest.” Id. at 12.

Justice Thomas also wrote his own separate dissent. He affirmed his agreement with Chief Justice Roberts’s application of the Court’s regulatory takings precedent, but he reiterated his belief that the Court should reexamine the past century’s regulatory takings jurisprudence to see if it can be rooted in the original meaning of the Constitution.

Takeaways

The balancing test adopted in Murr will not make takings litigation any simpler or more predictable. It amplifies the subjectivity—and thus the variability—of the takings analysis. In different courts, that may redound to the benefit of the government or to the benefit of the property owner. However, the Murr decision is a clear victory for municipal governments, environmentalists, and other proponents of regulation inasmuch as the Court rejected efforts to rewrite the takings analysis in ways that would more frequently require compensation to property owners. The decision also provides a modest degree of clarity by expressly endorsing merger provisions for adjacent, substandard lots that share an owner. That alone marks Murr as a big win for municipal governments in Wisconsin and across the country that utilize this common tool.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Reaffirms Bright-Line Building Permit Rule

Published on | Permalink

In McKee Family I, LLC and JD McCormick Company, LLC v. City of Fitchburg, 2017 WI 34, No. 2014AP1914 (April 12, 2017), the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the bright-line building permit rule, under which a property owner cannot claim vested rights absent submission of an application for a building permit that conforms to the zoning or building code requirements in effect at the time of application.

A McKee entity owned property in the City of Fitchburg, including two undeveloped lots. Those lots were zoned as residential-medium (R-M) zoning classification. McKee applied for and received approval to rezone the land as planned development district (PDD) zoning, which would allow mixed-used development of a higher density than under the R-M classification. Fitchburg enacted an ordinance rezoning this land to a PDD classification and at the same time approved McKee’s general implementation plan for developing the property. As approved, the plan provided for development of a senior living community.

In 2008, McKee entered into negotiations to sell JD McCormick Company, LLC the two undeveloped lots. The sale was contingent on McCormick’s ability to obtain approval from Fitchburg to build 128 apartment units on the undeveloped lots. McCormick prepared a PDD-specific implementation plan for the 128-unit apartment complex on the two undeveloped lots.

After McCormick submitted the plan, Fitchburg rezoned the two lots from PDD to R-M classification. This rezoning limited McCormick to developing 28 dwelling units, as compared to a maximum of 132 dwelling units under the PDD zoning classification. McKee and McCormick (which was eventually dismissed for lack of standing) filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory judgment, damages, and injunctive relief, all on the theory that City’s the rezoning was unlawful.

The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Fitchburg. McKee appealed, asserting on appeal that: it had a vested right in the PDD zoning classification; the PDD classification created a contract that gives rise to expectations on which developers may rely; and to the extent the reclassification was unlawful, the rezoning ordinance constituted a taking. The court of appeals determined that McKee did not have a vested right and affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to Fitchburg.

On review before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, McKee relied upon the same arguments raised before the court of appeals. With respect to the vested rights argument, McKee argued that the court should depart from the well-established rule in Wisconsin that rights vest only once a developer has applied for a building permit and instead evaluate vested rights on a case-by-case basis. McKee asserted that in this case, it had obtained vested rights based on the substantial expenditures incurred in preparation for development under the PDD zoning plans submitted to Fitchburg.

Relying on Lake Bluff Housing Partners v. City of South Milwaukee, 197 Wis. 2d 157, 540 N.W.2d 189 (1995), the court rejected McKee’s argument and reaffirmed the bright-line building permit rule. The court noted that such a rule “creates predictability for land owners, purchasers, developers, municipalities and the courts.”

The court further opined that, even if it were to determine that a rule based on substantial expenditures should apply in this case, McKee’s claim would still fail because McKee had not introduced sufficient evidence to support that claim. McKee had failed to present evidence that it made expenditures in reliance on the PDD zoning or submitted an application for a building permit.

The court also opined that the planned development district zoning classification did not create contractual expectations upon which McKee could rely. The court explained that there is a strong presumption that legislative enactments do not create contractual or vested rights, and that presumption cannot be overcome without a clear indication that a legislative body intends to bind itself contractually. McKee failed to make such a showing.

This case highlights the necessity for developers that wish to develop land under existing zoning classifications to submit a completed building permit application before zoning law changes under their feet.

Wisconsin Supreme Court holds that courts cannot privatize determinations of legal rights

Published on | Permalink

Private parties can agree to resolve their disputes through arbitration. When they do so, courts enforce those agreements, and the merits of the parties’ disputes are not addressed within the judicial branch. Instead, the parties pay arbitrators to consider evidence, hear argument, and issue binding decisions. But what happens if the court, rather than the parties, wants to divert a dispute to a different decisionmaker? The Wisconsin Constitution places limits on what courts can outsource and to what degree a judge can defer to a private decisionmaker’s determinations. A majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court expounded on those limits in State of Wisconsin ex rel. Universal Processing Services of Wisconsin, LLC v. Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, 2017 WI 26.

Facts and procedural history

The case began as a commercial dispute. Universal Processing Services (which the court refers to as Newtek) filed suit against a former contract employee, Samuel Hicks, for misappropriation of trade secrets and other related claims. Hicks filed several counterclaims. The parties engaged in extensive discovery, which itself created new disputes. Several months into the litigation, the trial court granted each side additional time for discovery while declaring that its docket was too full “‘to expend a lot of time dealing with [the parties’] discovery bickering.’” Id., ¶14. The trial court thereby appointed a retired judge (now in private practice) to resolve “‘discovery disputes, etcetera.’” Id. The court explained that this step should incentivize the parties to be reasonable, as they would be paying hourly for time the retired judge spent resolving their disputes. See id.

Wisconsin law authorizes judges to appoint referees to assist in complicated cases, though such outsourcing “shall be the exception and not the rule.” Wis. Stat. § 805.06(2). (While the trial court in this case used the term special master, which is also the term used in federal courts, the Wisconsin Statutes, and the Supreme Court’s opinion in this case use the term referee.) The court order appointing a referee and delineating the referee’s powers in the particular case is called an order of reference. In this case, the Supreme Court assessed the constitutionality of the order of reference.

The case did not reach the Supreme Court in a typical way. After discovery, the referee issued a partial summary judgment ruling and limited the evidence to be presented at trial. Over Newtek’s objections, the circuit court largely affirmed that ruling. Newtek then petitioned the court of appeals for immediate appellate review. Newtek’s petition focused on the substance of the partial summary judgment ruling and related evidentiary holdings, not on the legality of the order of reference. The court of appeals declined to hear an immediate appeal. Newtek did not appeal that denial. Instead, Newtek asked the Supreme Court to issue a supervisory writ vacating the referee’s appointment. This atypical procedure led three Justices to conclude that the constitutional issues were not properly presented to the Supreme Court. See 2017 WI 26, ¶¶112-16 (Ziegler, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part); ¶¶117-42 (R. Bradley, J., joined by Kelly, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). Additionally, because the court found certain aspects of the order of reference unconstitutional but deemed others acceptable, the case has an odd outcome where Newtek’s petition for a supervisory writ is denied, even though Newtek got much of the relief it sought.

The Supreme Court’s constitutional analysis

While the opinion devotes significant space to the procedural history, this post is focused on the substance of the court’s constitutional analysis. For those purposes, the Supreme Court focused on three provisions in the order of reference:

  1. The provision that “All motions filed, whether discovery or dispositive, shall initially be heard and decided by the [referee].”
  1. The allowance that the referee could certify specific issues for decision by the trial court, but that the trial court could decline to decide the issues and send them back to the referee.
  1. The limited availability of judicial review for the referee’s decisions. Individual rulings to which a party raised prompt objections were reviewable by the trial court under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. All other rulings would be reviewable on appeal after final judgment to the same extent as if rendered by the trial court.

Id., ¶20.

The Supreme Court assessed these provisions in light of Article VII, Section 2 of the Wisconsin Constitution. That provision “vests the ‘judicial power’ of this state in a unified court system.” Id., ¶56. The Wisconsin Constitution does not define “judicial power,” but the Supreme Court has described it as the “ultimate adjudicative authority of courts to finally decide rights and responsibilities as between individuals.” State v. Williams, 2012 WI 59, ¶36, 341 Wis. 2d 191, 814 N.W.2d 460.

Here, the issue was whether the order of reference exceeded the scope of what may be permissibly delegated to a referee. Nineteenth-century Wisconsin case law suggests that “the power to refer [is] not limitless.” 2017 WI 26, ¶64. And the court cited federal cases discussing the scope of a referee’s abilities and highlighting that the referee serves as a judicial aid. Id., ¶69. The court should not delegate “‘the core function of making dispositive rulings, including findings of fact and conclusions of law on issues of liability.’” Id., ¶71 (quoting In re Bituminous Coal Operators’ Ass’n, 949 F.2d 1165, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1991)).

Wisconsin courts have not, before now, clearly delineated the parameters of how referees may aid judges. Id., ¶ 75. The Supreme Court adopted the federal standard that courts cannot delegate core judicial powers--for example the power to decide dispositive motions and conduct trials. Id., ¶76. Under this standard, it followed that the order of reference exceeded constitutional limits when it delegated the authority to hear and decide all motions. This delegation—compounded by the certification provision that allowed the circuit court to refuse to resolve issues in the first instance—and reduced the trial judge’s responsibilities to something more akin to a reviewing court. Id., ¶77. “A referee may share judicial labor, but the Order of Reference may not allow a referee to assume the place of the judge.” Id., ¶82.

The Supreme Court next considered how closely a circuit court must review the referee’s determinations. The order of reference in this case provided for a deferential, abuse-of-discretion review. Such a standard contemplates affirmance even if the court may not necessarily have reached the same conclusion. See id., ¶86. It is unlike de novo review, in which “the reviewing court reaches whatever decision it would reach independently of the decision of the prior decision maker.” Id., ¶85. Agreeing to apply only such surface review “gives the appearance of an abdication of the circuit court’s responsibility to exercise independent judgment.” Id., ¶86. While the Wisconsin Constitution permits the legislature to grant the circuit court appellate jurisdiction over referee rulings, the legislature has not done so. Id., ¶87. The court therefore held application of abuse-of-discretion review was unconstitutional here.

Takeaways from this decision

The Court’s decision makes clear that circuit courts may not delegate their fundamental, or “core,” functions to referees. Private parties may choose to arbitrate their disputes outside of the judicial branch if they so desire. But circuit courts may not compel privatization of the judicial function, because the Wisconsin Constitution entitles parties to litigate their claims before a court. This is why the Supreme Court cautions trial judges to utilize referees sparingly and only as support, rather than as stand-ins.

Finally, it’s notable that the Supreme Court’s decision cut across the Court’s ideological divisions. Justice Abrahamson wrote the majority opinion. She was joined not only by Justice A.W. Bradley, but also by Chief Justice Roggensack and Justice Gableman. This is highly unusual. Last term, for example, Justices Abrahamson and A.W. Bradley agreed in every case decided, while Justice Abrahamson agreed with the Chief Justice in only 12 percent of non-unanimous cases and with Justice Gableman in 25 percent of those cases. See Alan Ball, Wisconsin Supreme Court Statistics, 2015-2016, SCOWstats (July 22, 2016). Even in a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justices R. Bradley and Kelly “agree with the majority’s conclusion that the Reference impermissibly delegated the circuit court’s constitutionally vested judicial power to the referee.” 2017 WI 26, ¶118. Only Justice Ziegler does not endorse the majority’s constitutional analysis; she offers no opinion on the constitutional issues at all, focusing only on procedural flaws in the presentation of the case. See id., ¶115 (Ziegler, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Defending the judiciary’s constitutional role seems to be the rare issue that transcends the current schisms on the Court.

Law clerk Olivia Pietrantoni assisted in researching and writing this post.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Decision Leaves Certified Questions Unanswered

Published on | Permalink

In State v. Howes, 2017 WI 18, the Wisconsin Supreme Court analyzed a warrantless blood draw in an OWI in light of, Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), in which the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of warrantless blood draws to prevent dissipation in alcohol concentration.  Howes, however, may not provide Wisconsinites all of the guidance that many anticipated.

The defendant, David Howes, was involved in a motorcycle versus deer crash.  By the time a deputy responded, emergency personnel were already treating an unconscious Howes.  The deputy could not find any witnesses, but a bystander reported that Howes smelled of intoxicants.  Howes was hospitalized.  On his way to the hospital, the deputy checked Howes’ record and found out that Howes had three prior OWI/PAC. This meant that Howes was subject not to the general 0.08% limit on blood alcohol concentration while driving but, as a repeat offender, to a stricter 0.02% limit.  The deputy also spoke with the EMTs who treated Howes, one of whom reported smelling intoxicants emanating from Howes.  The deputy arrested Howes, then unconscious, for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration based on the smell reported by others, the 0.02% threshold and the crash itself.  While Howes was still unconscious the deputy read him the Informing the Accused form and asked if he would submit to a blood test. Receiving no response and without first seeking a warrant, the deputy instructed the hospital staff to draw a blood sample.  The results showed Howes’ blood alcohol concentration was 0.11%. 

In his trial for OWI (4th offense) and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration, Howes moved to suppress the results of the blood draw.  The circuit court granted the motion.  The court found the deputy had probable cause to arrest Howes.  However, the court held Wisconsin’s implied consent law was unconstitutional as it related to a blood draw of an unconscious person without a warrant or exigent circumstances.

The State appealed and the court of appeals certified the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  The court of appeals certified a single issue: whether the portions of Wisconsin’s implied consent law that allow for warrantless blood draws from unconscious suspects violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

The lead opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roggensack, reversed the decision by the trial court, but on grounds that appear to diverge from the reasoning of the trial court and the issue certified by the court of appeals.  First, the court found the deputy had probable cause to arrest Howes for the same reasons outlined by the trial court.  The court focused its analysis on exigent circumstances sufficient to justify a warrantless blood draw.  Citing extensively to Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), and McNeely, the court found there were exigent circumstances, stating "Under the totality of the circumstances presented herein, which included a seriously injured, unconscious person, who was being subjected to medical treatments for his injuries and who had 0.02 percent as his PAC threshold, a reasonable officer could have concluded that further delay in drawing Howes’ blood would have led to the destruction of evidence through the dissipation and dilution of alcohol in Howes’ bloodstream."  Howes, ¶ 51.  The court remanded the case for further proceedings.

The majority concluded that exigent circumstances existed at the time due to the possible dissipation or destruction of evidence (alcohol) in Howes’ blood had the deputy waited to obtain a warrant. This was not the question presented in the circuit court, nor was it the question certified by the Court of Appeals.

Justice Gableman, joined by Justice Ziegler, concurred.  While Justices Gabelman and Ziegler agreed with the majority’s mandate, Justice Gableman focused on the question certified by the court of appeals – “whether provisions in Wisconsin’s implied consent law authorizing a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious driver based on the driver’s implied consent are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”  Id. ¶ 52.  Noting that McNeely was not relevant to this consideration, he found Howes did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the portions of the implied consent law applicable to unconscious drivers, namely the portions that indicate a driver consents unless he or she expressly revokes consent, are unconstitutional.  The concurrence concluded the presumption established by the implied consent law that an unconscious driver does not withdraw consent was not per se unreasonable and in such a circumstance, there was no need for a warrant because the unconscious driver has voluntarily consented to the blood draw.

The dissent, authored by Justice Abrahamson and joined by Justice Walsh Bradley in full and Justice Kelly in part, held the portions of the implied consent law authorizing warrantless blood draws on unconscious individuals to be unconstitutional.  Harshly criticizing the lead opinion’s focus on exigent circumstances, the dissent explained “because unconscious drivers have not freely and voluntarily consented to the warrantless blood draw under the Fourth Amendment . . . the warrantless blood test in the instant case should be suppressed.”  Id. ¶ 136.  More specifically, the dissent evaluated the issue in the context of searches incident to arrest, arguing that if the U.S. Supreme Court will not establish blood draws as a per se rules that warrantless blood draws are authorized under the search incident to arrest exception, then warrantless blood draws cannot be allowed based solely on statutorily imputed implied consent.

Ultimately, the split decision does not provide direct authority on the issue of the constitutionality of the implied consent law.  Instead, this decision suggests that officers must continue to evaluate the totality of the circumstances and with an eye toward the issues relevant to exigent circumstances.  The only clear-cut instruction at this point may be to obtain a warrant whenever possible.

Only Wisconsin Case Before U.S. Supreme Court this Term Should Not Be Decided

Published on | Permalink

There is only one Wisconsin case at the U.S. Supreme Court this Term. Murr v. Wisconsin (No. 15-214) will be heard on March 20—but the Court should not decide it.

As this blog has previously detailed, the Murr case involves a dispute about how land-use regulations adopted to protect the Lower St. Croix River apply to a riverside property in northwestern Wisconsin. The Wisconsin state courts uniformly turned aside the Murr family’s claims that the regulations as applied by St. Croix County unconstitutionally reduced the value of their land. In January 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Murrs’ petition to review the case.

There is no shortage of intriguing storylines intertwined in the Murr case. Among them:

  • The dispute is over the balance between private property rights and government regulation, which is always a hot-button issue. Whether the conflict here has constitutional dimensions and how to determine that are both contentious questions. In addition to numerous organizations that have chosen sides, nine states have filed a brief supporting Wisconsin’s position, and nine other states filed in support of the Murrs.
  • The case has dragged on, even by the standards of extensive litigation. St. Croix County denied the Murrs’ request for a zoning variance in 2006. Once the case wended through the courts and the Supreme Court accepted review, it then left the case in limbo, so that it is hearing the case almost a year later than anticipated—all without explanation.
  • The case will be heard by a short-handed, eight-member Supreme Court on the same day that the Senate Judicial Committee will convene hearings on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the Court’s vacancy. If that’s not enough inside baseball, the Murr argument will also mark the debut of Wisconsin Solicitor General Misha Tseytlin before the Supreme Court.

But one of the most interesting aspects of the case is that there are several reasons that the Supreme Court should not decide the dispute at all. There’s no need to reach the constitutional question, and courts generally avoid making new constitutional law unless doing so is necessary. The Murrs’ case was dismissed in 2013 because it was not filed within the time limits prescribed by Wisconsin law. St. Croix County also argued at that stage that the Murrs had not taken all of the steps required before filing suit.

Either argument, if correct, would dispose of this case without a controversial constitutional ruling. Neither argument was fully explored in the Wisconsin appellate courts. As it has done before, the Supreme Court should send the case back to the state courts for resolution of these antecedent issues and should consider the constitutional question only if necessitated by the lower courts determining that the other issues don’t end the case.

We made this argument in an amicus brief (available here), filed on behalf of three membership organizations that, among them, represent every level of local government in the state of Wisconsin. The brief urges the Court to follow its own precedent, to allow this case to be resolved on the narrowest possible grounds, and to avoid wading into a complex constitutional conflict unless absolutely necessary. In light of the fact that Murr will be decided by a shorthanded Court comprised of Justices who could easily split evenly on the constitutional issues in the case, the option of sending the case back to the Wisconsin courts may be particularly welcome.

Check back with the Stafford Rosenbaum Appellate Practice Blog for coverage of additional developments in Wisconsin v. Murr.

For media inquiries please contact attorney Jeff Mandell at (608) 210-6303 or jmandell@staffordlaw.com

 
Next Page