Yasmine Clark v. American Cyanamid Company
Appeal Number 2014AP000775
Court of Appeals District 1
CASE HISTORY
|
Status
|
Court
|
Filing Date
|
Anticipated Due Date
|
Activity
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
11-07-2016
|
Remittitur
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
09-20-2016
|
||
|
Judge Panel: Kessler, LaRocque, Brash
Opinion: Summary Disposition Decision: Dismissed Pages: 10 Order Text: IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21 and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
09-06-2016
|
Submitted on Briefs
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
08-16-2016
|
Briefs Received At State Law Library
|
|
|
Comment: Not retained at law library (Supplemental Briefs)
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
07-27-2016
|
||
|
Filed By: Luke Berg
Comment: Attorney General Suppl. Amicus Curia Brief |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
07-25-2016
|
||
|
Filed By: Jeffrey Spoerk
Comment: Suppl. Reply Brief - American Cyanamid Co., Armstrong Containers, Inc., E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Atlantic Richfield Company and The Sherwin-Williams Company Appendix to Other Brief |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
07-20-2016
|
||
|
Comment: Yasmine Clark
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
06-30-2016
|
||
|
Comment: Supplemental Brief - American Cyanamid Co., Armstrong Containers, Inc., E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Atlantic Richfield Company and The Sherwin-Williams Company
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
05-12-2016
|
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
|
|
|
Filed By: Jeffrey Spoerk
Submit Date: 5-19-2016 Decision: (O) Other Decision Date: 6-10-2016 ORD that this court will rely on the briefs filed in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but will also allow limited supplemental briefing as outlined in this order. FRO that the Defendants-Appellants and Attorney Generals motions for supplemental briefing and oral argument are granted in part and denied in part. This court will establish a slightly shorter supplemental briefing schedule than requested, and it will decide after supplemental briefing whether to schedule oral argument. Only those who have filed supplemental briefs will be allotted time to participate in oral argument (if it is ultimately scheduled). FRO that the Defendants-Appellants shall file their supplemental appellants brief within 20 days of the date of this order and the format shall be consistent with WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(8), (9), (12), and (13), except the length of the brief may not exceed 10 pages if a monospaced font is used or 2,250 words if a proportional serif font is used. FRO that the Plaintiff-Respondent shall file her supplemental response brief within 20 days after the date on which the court accepts the Defendants-Appellants supplemental appellants brief for filing. The format shall be consistent with WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(8), (9), (12), and (13), except the length of the brief may not exceed 10 pages if a monospaced font is used or 2,250 words if a proportional serif font is used. FRO that the Defendants-Appellants shall file their supplemental reply brief within five days after the date on which the court accepts the Plaintiff-Respondents supplemental response brief for filing. The format shall be consistent with WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(8), (9), (12), and (13), except the length of the brief may not exceed 5 pages if a monospaced font is used or 1,125 words if a proportional serif font is used. FRO that if the Attorney General chooses to file a supplemental amicus Comment: procedural motion for supplemental briefing and oral argument; 5/16/16 rcv'd add'l duplicate copies of motion; 5/18/16 rcvd. motion supporting def-app motion and for oral arg. time from Luke Berg |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
05-11-2016
|
Other Papers
|
|
|
Comment: ltr. from Atty. Earle asking if CA wishes to decide case based on briefs filed in Supreme Court or if further briefing will be ordered.
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
04-15-2016
|
Cites
|
|
|
367 Wis. 2d 540
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
04-15-2016
|
Cites
|
|
|
877 N.W.2d 117
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
04-15-2016
|
Court Changed to Court of Appeals
|
|
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
04-15-2016
|
||
|
Judge Panel: Roggensack, Abrahamson, Bradley, Prosser, Ziegler, Gableman, Bradley
Opinion: Opinion Decision: Remanded to Court of Appeals Pages: 2 Order Text: The order granting certification is vacated and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals. REBECCA G. BRADLEY, J., did not participate. |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
04-13-2016
|
Public Domain Citation
|
|
|
Comment: PDC No: 2016 WI 24
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
04-12-2016
|
Other Papers
|
|
|
Comment: ltr. from DSG Berg responds with citation to SC case he mentioned during 4/5/16 oral argument. Case is Bank Markazi v. Petersoh, Docket No. 14-770.
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
04-05-2016
|
Oral Argument
|
|
|
Comment: at 1:30 p.m. Atty Leon F. DeJulius for Def-App; Atty Luke N. Berg Amicus Curiae for Def-App; Atty Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick for Pla-Res; Atty Peter G. Earle for Pla-Res
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
03-14-2016
|
Briefs Received At State Law Library
|
|
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
03-08-2016
|
Reply Brief-Supreme Court
Reply Brief-Supreme Court |
|
|
Filed By: James Goldschmidt
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
03-08-2016
|
||
|
Filed By: Luke Berg
Comment: Non-Party Brief Of The Attorney General In Support Of The Defendants-Appellants |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
03-08-2016
|
Response Brief-Supreme Court
Response Brief-Supreme Court |
|
|
Filed By: Peter Earle
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
02-16-2016
|
Briefs Received At State Law Library
|
|
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
02-11-2016
|
Assigned-Oral Argument
|
|
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
02-08-2016
|
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
|
|
|
Filed By: Luke Berg
Submit Date: 2-8-2016 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 3-8-2016 IT IS ORDERED that the motion is granted. The Wisconsin Attorney Generals amicus brief is accepted for filing, and the Wisconsin Attorney General shall participate in the oral argument using 10 minutes of defendants-appellants' allotted time for argument. REBECCA G. BRADLEY, J., did not participate. SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (concurring in part). Motion Response Filed By: Peter Earle Submit Date: 2-15-2016 Motion Response Filed By: Luke Berg Submit Date: 2-15-2016 Motion Response Filed By: Peter Earle Submit Date: 2-22-2016 Motion Response Filed By: Peter Earle Submit Date: 2-26-2016 Motion Response Filed By: Luke Berg Submit Date: 2-29-2016 Comment: Attorney General In Support of Defendants-Appellants file Amicus Brief/ be allotted oral argument time |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
01-25-2016
|
Motion to Take Judicial Notice
|
|
|
Filed By: Victor Harding
Submit Date: 1-25-2016 Decision: (O) Other Decision Date: 3-8-2016 IT IS ORDERED that the motion is granted as to Exhibits 1-3 and denied as to Exhibits 4-7. Legislative history, such as that contained within Exhibits 1-3, is properly subject to judicial notice, and defendants-appellants do not argue otherwise. See, e.g., Czapinski v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 80, 24, 236 Wis. 2d 316, 613 N.W.2d 120. As to Exhibits 4-7, however, Ms. Clark has failed to establish, as material here, that the information in those documents cannot reasonably be questioned, see Wis. Stat. 902.01(2)(b), or that the information is relevant to the issues before the court. REBECCA G. BRADLEY, J., did not participate. SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J., (concurring in part and dissenting in part). ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). Motion Response Filed By: James Goldschmidt Submit Date: 2-3-2016 |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
01-19-2016
|
Other Papers
|
|
|
Comment: ret. mail, Atty. Fitzpatrick's copy of ack. of filing First SC Brief, updated address, remailed
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
01-15-2016
|
Motion to Extend Time
|
|
|
Filed By: Peter Earle
Submit Date: 1-15-2016 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 1-15-2016 IT IS ORDERED that the motion is granted. Plaintiff-respondent's response brief shall be served and filed on or before January 25, 2016. See BR2 event due on 1-25-2016 |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
01-04-2016
|
Motion for Pro Hac Vice status
|
|
|
Filed By: James Goldschmidt
Submit Date: 1-6-2016 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 1-7-2015 IT IS ORDERED the motion is granted. A copy of SCR 10.34(4), setting forth the requirements for attorneys appearing pro hac vice, is attached to the moving party's order. Rebecca G. Bradley, J. did not participate. Comment: (Add'l copies of motion rcv'd on 1/6/16) |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
12-30-2015
|
First Brief-Supreme Court
First Brief-Supreme Court |
|
|
Filed By: James Goldschmidt
Comment: separate appendix |
||||
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
12-02-2015
|
Court Changed to Supreme Court
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
12-02-2015
|
Hold Status
|
|
|
OCCD
|
SC
|
09-29-2015
|
Certification Filed
|
|
|
Filed By: Supreme Court Supreme Court
Submit Date: 10-2-2015 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 12-2-2015 IT IS ORDERED the certification is granted and the appeal is accepted for consideration of all issues raised before the court of appeals. When this court grants direct review upon certification, it acquires jurisdiction of the case, Wis. Const. art. VII, 3(3), that is, the entire appeal, which includes all issues, not merely the issues certified or the issue for which the court accepts the certification. State v. Stoehr, 134 Wis. 2d 66, 70, 396 N.W.2d 177 (1986); Wis. Stat. 808.05(2) and (Rule) 809.61. Further, the court has jurisdiction over issues not certified because the court may review an issue directly on its own motion. Wis. Stat. 808.05(3); and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this order the appellant must file either a brief in this court or a statement that no brief will be filed; that within 20 days of filing, the respondent must file either a brief or a statement that no brief will be filed; and that if a brief is filed by the respondent, within 10 days of filing, the appellant must file either a reply brief or a statement that no reply brief will be filed; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in any brief filed in this court the parties shall not incorporate by reference any portion of their court of appeals' brief; instead, any material upon which there is reliance should be restated in the brief filed in this court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event any party elects not to file a brief in this court, the briefs previously submitted by that party to the court of appeals shall stand as that party's brief in the Supreme Court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within the time period established for the filing of briefs, each party must provide the clerk of this court with copies of the briefs previously filed on behalf of that party in the court of appeals. If a party elects to file a new brief(s), 10 copies of their court of appeals brief(s) must be provided. If a party elects to stand on their court of appeals brief(s), 17 copies of each of their court of appeals brief(s) must be provided. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall be notified of the date and time for oral argument in this appeal in due course. Rebecca G. Bradley, J., did not participate. See DEC event filed on 9-29-2015 |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
09-29-2015
|
||
|
Judge Panel: Kessler, Curley, Bradley
Opinion: Certification Decision: Certification Filed Pages: 14 Order Text: For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request the supreme courts guidance regarding whether applying WIS. STAT. 895.046 retroactively deprives Clark of a vested property right in violation of the due process protections guaranteed by Article I, Section I of the Wisconsin Constitution. |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
08-03-2015
|
Submitted on Briefs
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
07-17-2015
|
Motion to Correct/Supplement Record
|
|
|
Filed By: James Goldschmidt
Submit Date: 7-21-2015 Decision: (D) Deny Decision Date: 9-29-2015 IT IS ORDERED the motion is denied. (footnote 2 of cert) Motion Response Filed By: Peter Earle Submit Date: 7-21-2015 Comment: 07/21/15, Rec'd response |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
06-01-2015
|
Attorney Change
|
|
|
Comment: Letter from Gass Weber Mullins, LLC to withdraw Hanan, Hanan Withdrawn
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
05-26-2015
|
Other Papers
|
|
|
Comment: Letter from Atty. Earle informing us US SC denied writ of certiorari
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-30-2015
|
Briefs Received At State Law Library
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-16-2015
|
Record and Briefs Sent to District 1
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-14-2015
|
Reply Brief
Reply Brief |
|
|
Filed By: Jeffrey Spoerk
Comment: received 10 copies of BRY for SC use. PS 3-1-2016 |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
03-09-2015
|
Attorney Change
|
|
|
Comment: Rec'd Notice of Appearance, Added V. C. Harding, Counsel for Pla-Res
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
03-03-2015
|
Motion to Dismiss
|
|
|
Filed By: Peter Earle
Submit Date: 3-19-2015 Decision: (D) Deny Decision Date: 3-30-2015 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss and remand is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the reply brief in this matter shall be filed within fifteen days of the date of this order. Motion Response Filed By: James Goldschmidt Submit Date: 3-19-2015 Comment: and Remand for Trial; 03/10/15, Rec'd Sherwin-Williams Rsp |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
02-26-2015
|
Certificate of Service
|
|
|
Comment: BRS (IB)
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
02-26-2015
|
Brief of Respondent(s)
Brief of Respondent(s) |
|
|
Filed By: Peter Earle
Comment: Separate Appendix. Please note an appendix certification has been added to this brief. See Rule 809.19(2) regarding requirements. Please note the party designation on the caption was corrected on the covers of this brief. Please use the above caption on all future briefs.Received 10 copies of CA BRS and separate appendix for SC use 1/25/16 EW |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
01-28-2015
|
Certificate of Service
|
|
|
Comment: BAP (IB)
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
01-28-2015
|
Brief & Appx of Appellant(s)
Brief of Appellant(s) |
|
|
Filed By: Jeffrey Spoerk
Comment: Separate Appendix: received 10 copies of BAP and appendix for SC use. PS 3-1-2016 |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
12-29-2014
|
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Filed
|
|
|
Comment: Rec'd from NL Industries, Inc.; N/A; (Not a party to this appeal)
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
12-17-2014
|
Record
|
|
|
Comment: 1-19 to 498-22, 5 Separate Boxes
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
11-11-2014
|
Motion for Stay
|
|
|
Filed By: Michael Wirth
Submit Date: 11-11-2014 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 11-12-2014 IT IS ORDERED that transmittal of the record in this matter to the court of appeals is stayed through December 10, 2014, or until further order of this court. Comment: the submission of the REC |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
10-24-2014
|
Delinquent
|
|
|
Comment: New due date of connected REC: 11-10-2014
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
09-22-2014
|
Other Papers
|
|
|
Comment: Mail returned from E. Echtman marked RTS, unable to forward, not at Milw HOC (1001 notice); Resent to updated address
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
09-10-2014
|
Letter/Correspondence
|
|
|
Comment: Rcv'd returned 8/27/14 mailing for Atty. Echtman, updated demographics and resent.
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
09-09-2014
|
Pro Hac Vice Letter
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
09-08-2014
|
Caption Amended
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
09-08-2014
|
Docketing Statement from Appellant
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
09-08-2014
|
Statement on Transcript
|
|
|
Filed By: Jeffrey Spoerk
Status: Prev. Filed Comment: 10/15/14, Provided copy of SRT to Circ. Ct. APP did not serve them |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
08-27-2014
|
Notif. Sent-Filing of LVO & Court Record
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
08-27-2014
|
Copy of Order Granting Leave - from Cir. Ct.
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
08-25-2014
|
Copy of CTO Grtg. PLV Filed in Cir. Ct.
|
|
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
08-14-2014
|
Additional Authorities
|
|
|
Comment: Copy of petition filed in federal court.Rcvd additional copies for court 8/19/2014.
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
08-11-2014
|
Additional Authorities
|
|
|
Comment: Copy of petition filed in federal court
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
08-04-2014
|
Additional Authorities
|
|
|
Comment: Plaintiff-Respondent filed
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-25-2014
|
Additional Authorities
|
|
|
Comment: filed by James T. Murray, Jr.
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-16-2014
|
Letter/Correspondence
|
|
|
Comment: GAL Gramling's notices returned by PO - resent to address on state bar website
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-09-2014
|
Fee Paid
|
|
|
Comment: Receipt No: 14R 000971
|
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
04-08-2014
|
Petition for Leave to Appeal
|
|
|
Filed By: Michael Wirth
Submit Date: 4-22-2014 Decision: (G) Grant Decision Date: 8-21-2014 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for leave to appeal is granted. Entry of this order has the effect of the filing of a notice of appeal. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.50(3)(2011-12). A copy of this order has been forwarded to the clerk of the circuit court. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.11(2), the clerk shall return this order and the docket entries matained pursuant to Wis. Stat 59.4 within three days of receipt of this order. Motion Response Filed By: Peter Earle Submit Date: 4-22-2014 Comment: separate appendix |
||||
|
OCCD
|
CA
|
03-25-2014
|
Non-Final Order of Circuit Court
|
|