Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-2011 Morters v. Barr, et al.

By: dmc-admin//January 20, 2003//

01-2011 Morters v. Barr, et al.

By: dmc-admin//January 20, 2003//

Listen to this article

This case comes before us on remand from the Supreme Court. On Oct. 21, 2002, the Supreme Court issued an order granting the petition for review in the case of Morters v. Barr, 2002 WI App 134, 255 Wis.2d 833, 646 N.W.2d 855, solely with respect to the issue of frivolousness. The supreme court also vacated our decision with respect to that issue and directed us to reconsider whether the issue was frivolous, and to make specific findings as required by Wis. Stat. Rule 809.25(3)(c) (1999-2000).

Upon reconsideration, we conclude that the appeal is not frivolous pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.25(3)(c), because we cannot conclude that the entire appeal is frivolous as required by Nichols v. Bennett, 190 Wis.2d 360, 365 n.2, 526 N.W.2d 831 (Ct. App. 1994). However, as our initial alarm was with the complete lack of substance in the appellants’ brief, we further conclude that the appellants’ brief failed to comply with the requirements of Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19, and accordingly, award the respondents all costs and fees on appeal, including attorney fees, pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.83(2).

This opinion will not be published.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Franke, Moroney, JJ., Per Curiam

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Leonard W. Schulz, Big Bend

For Respondent: William P. Croke, Milwaukee

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