Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

99-2355 Pasko, et al. v. City of Milwaukee, et al. (57018)

By: dmc-admin//April 29, 2002//

99-2355 Pasko, et al. v. City of Milwaukee, et al. (57018)

By: dmc-admin//April 29, 2002//

Listen to this article

“Further, we conclude that claim preclusion should not apply because such application would result in unfairness to the MPA. Normally nonparties to an action are not bound to a judgment therein based on the principle that everyone should have their day in court…. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that to hold that each member of the union is bound by an action taken by 23 individual members would be unfair to the other members of the union. The overall interests of the union were not of primary concern in the first action, and in order to provide the members with their fair day in court, we conclude that claim preclusion should not apply in this instance….

“In sum, we conclude that the MPA is not precluded from pursuing its writ of mandamus action at this time. However, from the facts currently presented in the record, we cannot conclude, as the court of appeals did, whether the MPA is entitled to a writ of mandamus at this time.”

Reversed and remanded.

Court of Appeals; Bablitch, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: John F. Fuchs, Marcia A. Snow, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Leonard A. Tokus, Grant F. Langley, Madison

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests