Norquist v. Zeuske

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Norquist v. Zeuske

2002 WI 69, 645 N.W.2d 869, 253 Wis. 2d 445, 2002 Wisc. LEXIS 465

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJune 25, 2002

Docket98-2795

StatusPublished

This text of 2002 WI 69 (Norquist v. Zeuske) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Norquist v. Zeuske, 2002 WI 69, 645 N.W.2d 869, 253 Wis. 2d 445, 2002 Wisc. LEXIS 465 (Wis. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

*447 ¶ 1. PER CURIAM.

This case is before the court on a petition for review filed by the plaintiffs, John O. Norquist, Kevin M. Crawford, Michael R. Miller, Joseph Laux, Dan Thompson, Edward Huck, Gerald Jor-gensen, Hunter Bohne, Janet Bohne, and Jill Bran (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the plaintiffs"). The plaintiffs seek review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, Norquist v. Zeuske, No. 98-2795, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 1999), affirming the circuit court's decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.

¶ 2. The underlying issue here is whether the plaintiffs have carried their burden to prove Wis. Stat. § 70.32(2r) unconstitutional. The Dane County Circuit Court, Reserve Judge Daniel L. LaRocque, presiding, dismissed the plaintiffs' case after concluding that the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proving the statute's unconstitutionality. The court of appeals affirmed, and we subsequently accepted the plaintiffs' petition for review.

¶ 3. At oral argument, held on April 11, 2002, plaintiffs' counsel noted that the plaintiffs seek only prospective relief. Consequently, plaintiffs' counsel conceded that this case is moot if we uphold the Department of Revenue (DOR) regulations implementing Wis. Stat. § 70.32(2r), providing for use-value assessment of agricultural land as of January 1, 2000, as presented before us this term in Mallo v. Department of Revenue, 2002 WI 70, 253 Wis. 2d 391, 645 N.W.2d 853. Today we uphold the validity of the DOR regulations in Mallo; therefore, we follow plaintiffs counsel's concession and dismiss this case as moot.

¶ 4. For the reasons set forth, we conclude that our decision in Mallo makes this case moot, and we dismiss the petition for review.

*448 By the Court. — The review of the decision of the court of appeals is dismissed.

¶ 5. DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*447 ¶ 1. PER CURIAM.

This case is before the court on a petition for review filed by the plaintiffs, John O. Norquist, Kevin M. Crawford, Michael R. Miller, Joseph Laux, Dan Thompson, Edward Huck, Gerald Jor-gensen, Hunter Bohne, Janet Bohne, and Jill Bran (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the plaintiffs"). The plaintiffs seek review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, Norquist v. Zeuske, No. 98-2795, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 1999), affirming the circuit court's decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.

¶ 2. The underlying issue here is whether the plaintiffs have carried their burden to prove Wis. Stat. § 70.32(2r) unconstitutional. The Dane County Circuit Court, Reserve Judge Daniel L. LaRocque, presiding, dismissed the plaintiffs' case after concluding that the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proving the statute's unconstitutionality. The court of appeals affirmed, and we subsequently accepted the plaintiffs' petition for review.

¶ 3. At oral argument, held on April 11, 2002, plaintiffs' counsel noted that the plaintiffs seek only prospective relief. Consequently, plaintiffs' counsel conceded that this case is moot if we uphold the Department of Revenue (DOR) regulations implementing Wis. Stat. § 70.32(2r), providing for use-value assessment of agricultural land as of January 1, 2000, as presented before us this term in Mallo v. Department of Revenue, 2002 WI 70, 253 Wis. 2d 391, 645 N.W.2d 853. Today we uphold the validity of the DOR regulations in Mallo; therefore, we follow plaintiffs counsel's concession and dismiss this case as moot.

¶ 4. For the reasons set forth, we conclude that our decision in Mallo makes this case moot, and we dismiss the petition for review.

*448 By the Court. — The review of the decision of the court of appeals is dismissed.

¶ 5. DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2002 WI 69, 645 N.W.2d 869, 253 Wis. 2d 445, 2002 Wisc. LEXIS 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norquist-v-zeuske-wis-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack