James D. Luedtke v. Daniel Bertrand

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 97-3238-W Case No.: Complete Title of Case: State of Wisconsin ex rel. James D. Luedtke, Petitioner, v. Daniel Bertrand, Respondent-Petitioner. ON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Reported at: 220 Wis. 2d 574, 583 N.W.2d 858 (Ct. App. 1998, Published) May 28, 1999 Opinion Filed: Submitted on Briefs: Oral Argument: April 8, 1999 Source of APPEAL COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: Circuit Dane Gerald C. Nichol JUSTICES: Concurred: Dissented: Not Participating: Wilcox, J., did not participate. ATTORNEYS: For the respondent-petitioner the cause was argued by Jody J. Schmelzer, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was Charles D. Hoornstra, assistant attorney general and James D. Doyle, attorney general. For the petitioner there was a brief by Stephen M. Compton and Brennan, Steil, Basting & MacDougall, S.C., Janesville and oral argument by Stephen M. Compton. No. 97-3238-W NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 97-3238-W STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT FILED State of Wisconsin ex rel. James D. Luedtke, MAY 28, 1999 Petitioner, Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI v. Daniel Bertrand, Respondent-Petitioner. REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Affirmed. The court is equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse the published decision of the court of appeals, State ex rel. Luedtke v. Bertrand, 220 Wis. 2d 574, 583 N.W.2d 858 (Ct. App. 1998). and Justices Ann Walsh Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson Bradley and David T. Prosser would affirm; Justices Donald W. Steinmetz, William A. Bablitch and N. Patrick Crooks would reverse. Justice Jon P. Wilcox withdrew from participation. ¶2 Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed. By the Court. The decision affirmed. 1 of the court of appeals is 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.