Ralph E. Beecher v. Labor & Industry Review Commission
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2004 WI 131 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 02-1582 Ralph E. Beecher, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Labor & Industry Review Commission, Outokumpu Copper Kenosha, Inc. and Fremont Indemnity Co., Insurer, c/o Casualty Insurance, Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 2004 WI 88 Reported at: 273 Wis. 2d 136, 682 N.W.2d 29 OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: October 29, 2004 SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: ABRAHAMSON, C.J., dissents (opinion filed). BRADLEY, J., joins dissent. BUTLER, J., did not participate. 2004 WI 131 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 02-1582 (L.C. No. 01CV001356) STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT Ralph E. Beecher, Plaintiff-Appellant, FILED v. Labor & Industry Review Commission, Outokumpu Copper Kenosha, Inc. and Fremont Indemnity Co., Insurer, c/o Casualty Insurance, OCT 29, 2004 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Defendants-RespondentsPetitioners. MOTION for reconsideration. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Reconsideration denied. The motion for reconsideration is denied without costs. ¶2 LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J., did not participate. No. ¶3 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. 02-1582.ssa The Labor (dissenting). and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) does not ask the court to change its mandate. of its decision opinion is It asks the court to reconsider that part holding de that novo. In judicial the review alternative of LIRC the agency seeks an opportunity to brief the matter of the appropriate standard of review. ¶4 Although the standard of review was briefed, neither party had the opportunity to brief the novel standard of review the majority opinion adopted. Once again the court bases its opinion on a matter not raised or argued by the parties and fails to give the parties a chance to be heard. the appellate process goes directly to our This failure of institutional integrity, contravenes our adversarial system, and increases the likelihood that the court will err. See also my dissent in the reconsideration of Maurin v. Hall, 2004 WI 129, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___. ¶5 LIRC argues that the new standard of review has detrimental policy implications, is confusing, and will lead to more litigation and more requests for judicial review. ¶6 LIRC has presented several important that the majority opinion does not consider. considerations I agree with LIRC that negative consequences result if the court adheres to the standard of review presented in the majority opinion. ¶7 I would reconsider the discussion of the standard of review, and I therefore dissent from the denial of the motion for reconsideration and the request for briefing. 1 No. ¶8 02-1582.ssa The only saving grace is, in my opinion, that the court will not follow the standard of review adopted in the majority opinion. I believe the majority decision will have the effect of a railroad ticket, just good for one ride on one day. If the court and litigants are wise, they will distinguish and disregard this "new standard of review" in future cases. ¶9 I am authorized to state BRADLEY joins this dissent. 2 that Justice ANN WALSH No. 1 02-1582.ssa
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.
