807 N.W.2d 666
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- The Capital Times Company and Mike Miller sued former Governor James Doyle and a record custodian for alleged violations of Wisconsin's open records law and sought punitive damages.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Governor's office failed to respond to a June 4, 2009 request for letters about nine judicial candidates until July 8, 2009, shortly before appointments were announced.
- The Newspaper filed suit on July 30, 2009, twenty-two days after the documents were released.
- The trial court dismissed, holding that mandamus was the exclusive vehicle to pursue relief under Wis. Stat. § 19.37.
- The court holds Wis. Stat. § 19.37(3) punitive damages claims are limited to mandamus actions, and discusses related statutory structure and policy considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §19.37(3) allows a standalone punitive damages action. | Newspaper: standalone punitive damages action permitted. | Governor's Office: punitive damages exist only through §19.37(1) mandamus actions. | Punitive damages limited to mandamus actions. |
| Whether actual damages are a prerequisite to punitive damages under §19.37(3). | Newspaper: no prerequisite actual damages required for punitive damages. | Governor's Office: requires actual damages before punitive damages may be awarded. | Actual damages required; punitive damages follow actual damages. |
| Whether equitable estoppel can bypass the statutory framework to permit a civil punitive damages action. | Newspaper seeks estoppel to allow civil action despite the statute. | Estoppel cannot create a cause of action where none exists. | Estoppel cannot create a standalone punitive damages action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalal v. Circuit Court, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004 WI 58) (textual plain-meaning method for statutory interpretation)
- State v. Zien, 761 N.W.2d 15 (2008 WI App 153) (recognizes two distinct mandamus actions under § 19.37(1))
- Widemshek v. Fale, 117 N.W.2d 275 (1962 WI) (damages rule requiring actual damages before punitive damages)
- Tucker v. Marcus, 418 N.W.2d 818 (1988 WI) (punitive damages considerations and limits)
- Kehl v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co., 433 N.W.2d 279 (Ct. App. 1988) (punitive damages generally require underlying actual damages)
- Groshek v. Trewin, 784 N.W.2d 163 (2010 WI 51) (supreme court on threshold actual damages before punitive damages)