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
08-03-2016
Attorney address updated
Comment: Address changed for attorney: 16289 Daniel T. Flaherty

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
03-09-2016
Rejected Electronic Document
Comment: 14AP775 - Appendix to Response to motion, it is not a requirement to e-file an appendix to a response to a motion.

OCCD
SC
03-09-2016
Rejected Electronic Document
Comment: 14AP775 - Response to motion, it is not a requirement to e-file a response to a motion.

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
07-21-2015
Rejected Electronic Document
Comment: The letter is being rejected because letters are not accepted under the efiling rule at this time.

OCCD
CA
07-21-2015
Rejected Electronic Document
Comment: The motion is being rejected because motions are not accepted under the efiling rule at this time.

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
Rejected Electronic Document
Comment: This Electronic Version of the Respondent's brief appendix cover is rejected due to an incorrect party designation. Please reload a corrected version of your brief and notify the Deputy 1 clerk when done. (The appendix is optional)

OCCD
CA
02-26-2015
Rejected Electronic Document
Comment: This Electronic Version of the Respondent's brief is rejected due to an incorrect party designation. Please reload a corrected version of your brief and notify the Deputy 1 clerk when done.

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
Rejected Electronic Document
Comment: 3 electronic versions of the Appellant's brief were uploaded for an unknown reason. This version is being rejected to avoid duplicity in the electronic document queue for this case.

OCCD
CA
01-28-2015
Rejected Electronic Document
Comment: 3 electronic versions of the Appellant's brief were uploaded for an unknown reason. This version is being rejected to avoid duplicity in the electronic document queue for this case.

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 CTO Grtg. PLV-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