Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Joel Urmanski

2025 WI 33
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 2, 2025
Docket2024AP000330-OA
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 WI 33 (Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Joel Urmanski) 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
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Joel Urmanski, 2025 WI 33 (Wis. 2025).

Opinion

2025 WI 33

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN, ET AL., Petitioners, v. JOEL URMANSKI, ET AL., Respondents.

No. 2024AP330-OA Filed July 2, 2025

The Court entered the following order on this date:

On July 2, 2024, this court granted the petition of petitioners, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin et al., for leave to commence an original action. Given our decision in Kaul v. Urmanski, 2025 WI 32, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.3d ___, which is also being released on this date, the court has now concluded that this original action should be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that this original action is dismissed; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions and the proposed stipulation are dismissed as moot. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. V. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

Statement of ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J., with whom REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., joins.

¶1 I agree with the court that this case does not belong before us. The original action petition should not have been granted in the first place, as explained by the dissents to the order granting the original action petition. Planned Parenthood of Wis. v. Urmanski, No. 2024AP330-OA, unpublished order at 5–10 (Wis. July 2, 2024) (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., dissenting); id. at 10–12 (Hagedorn, J., dissenting) (order reprinted below).

¶2 Also, it is interesting that the court appears to pick and choose when to provide reasoning for dismissing a case. Sometimes it says nothing. See Van Oudenhoven v. DOJ, 2025 WI 25, ___Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.3d ___ (per curiam). Other times it explains why the case is being dismissed, such as declaring the case moot.

2 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. v. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

3 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. v. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

4 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. v. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

5 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. v. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

6 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. v. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

7 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. v. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

8 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. v. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

9 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. v. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

10 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. v. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

11 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. v. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

12 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. v. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

13 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. v. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

14 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS. v. URMANSKI JUSTICE ZIEGLER Statement

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

Related

Scot Van Oudenhoven v. Wisconsin Department of Justice
2025 WI 25 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2025)
Josh Kaul v. Joel Urmanski, as DA for Sheboygan County, WI
2025 WI 32 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 WI 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/planned-parenthood-of-wisconsin-v-joel-urmanski-wis-2025.