01-0240 State ex rel. Thomas Hass v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Listen to this article

“Indeed, despite mandatory review, state court litigants who have obtained a favorable final judgment in federal court may still seek a federal court injunction to prevent any state court action. Thus, mandatory review serves comity only to the extent that it provides an additional determination on the preclusion claim. Therefore, such review would not promote comity to the same extent as the action taken by the court in Ramsden, 214 F.3d 865, where the court avoided direct friction between the courts by limiting the federal court’s ability to permanently enjoin state court action. Certainly, we recognize that federal court judgments should be given their full effect in state courts. We are confident, however, that our state circuit courts will adequately provide full and fair resolution of such claims of issue and claim preclusion. Litigants may then seek appeal of such nonfinal orders under Wis. Stat. sec. 808.03(2).”

Accordingly, the petition for supervisory writ is denied.

DISSENTING OPINION: Sykes, J. “I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that our superintending authority over the lower courts under Article VII, Section (3)(1) of the Wisconsin Constitution is not invoked lightly. [citation]. However, considerations of federal-state court comity weigh heavily in favor of its exercise in this instance.

“I would direct that the court of appeals grant interlocutory review of all nonfinal circuit court orders declining to give preclusive effect to federal court judgments. Federalism and the orderly functioning of our dual court system would be best served by this gesture of procedural respect in the state courts for federal court judgments.”

Petition for Supervisory Writ; Bablitch, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Patricia M. Gibeault, Michael J. Modl, Madison

For Respondent: David C. Rice, Madison