2005AP1450 L.M.S. v. Atkinson

Listen to this article

“We conclude that a party alleging error in the denial of a request for a continuance or other discretionary pre-trial relief must demonstrate, at a minimum, what would have happened differently had a continuance or other relief been granted and why the differences create a reasonable possibility of a different outcome….

“Atkinson argues in conclusory fashion that granting a continuance would have allowed him ‘a reasonable opportunity to secure new counsel and prepare a defense.’ However, he does not explain what the new defense would have been…. Atkinson neither identifies any witnesses, lay or expert, that could have been called at trial, nor does he explain what testimony any additional witnesses might have provided that would have undermined the plaintiff’s case or strengthened his defense.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Rock County, Dillon, J., Deininger, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Stanton, Marie A., Madison; Erlandson, Andrew W., Madison

For Respondent: McCarthy, Scott K., Milton