Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

02-1834 CUB, et al. v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

By: dmc-admin//September 29, 2003//

02-1834 CUB, et al. v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

By: dmc-admin//September 29, 2003//

Listen to this article

“[A]petition for judicial review of an administrative agency decision is the functional equivalent of an appeal. SOUL and WED failed to take the steps necessary to participate directly in the review, and now attempt to do so indirectly. Under Weina [v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 177 Wis. 2d 341 (Ct. App. 1993)], the trial court concluded such a result would be improper. We agree…

“There, the question was ‘whether a person who fails to file a timely notice of appeal may participate in the appeal through intervention or by the filing of a nonparty [amicus] brief.’ We answered that question in the negative, concluding that the ‘jurisdictional time limit for the commencement of an appeal would be circumvented’ if we granted the petition for intervention in the appeal or amicus status. We wrote that the petitioners could not ‘be allowed to do indirectly what they cannot do directly.’

“Even if we decided that the court could grant SOUL and WED intervenor status, the court correctly determined that their petition was time-barred.”

Order affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Marathon County, Howard, J., Hoover, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Edward R. Garvey, Madison; Glenn M. Stoddard, Madison; Pamela R. McGillivray, Madison; Christa Westerberg, Madison

For Respondent: David A. Ludwig, Madison; Robert J. Mussallem, Madison; Trevor J. Will, Milwaukee; Bartholomew F. Reuter, 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