980 N.W.2d 957
Wis.2022Background
- Petitioner Robert L. Slamka challenged General Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and filed a complaint that the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) dismissed under Wis. Stat. § 111.04(3)(a).
- The circuit court affirmed WERC's dismissal. The court of appeals affirmed that decision in an unpublished per curiam opinion.
- Slamka petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review. The Court granted review to consider issues believed to warrant development of the law.
- After briefing and oral argument, the Supreme Court dismissed the grant of review as improvidently granted (DIG) in a per curiam order, thereby leaving the lower-court dispositions intact.
- Justice Ann Walsh Bradley concurred separately, explaining she agreed with the DIG because further review would not develop the law, but criticizing the Court’s routine practice of issuing unexplained DIGs and urging that the Court generally provide reasons when dismissing review. Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet joined the concurrence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Supreme Court should decide the case | Slamka sought full review of the court of appeals' affirmation of WERC's dismissal | General Heating (and WERC) implicitly opposed further review or argued the issue did not warrant Supreme Court intervention | Court dismissed review as improvidently granted — did not reach merits |
| Validity of WERC's dismissal under Wis. Stat. § 111.04(3)(a) | Slamka contended the dismissal was erroneous (merits not fully presented to this Court) | Respondents defended the dismissal (affirmed below) | Not decided by the Supreme Court because of DIG |
| Whether the Court should explain a dismissal as improvidently granted | Slamka implicitly sought resolution on the underlying law, which would be aided by an explained disposition | Respondents relied on procedural posture and outcomes below; WERC decision left in place | Per curiam gave no explanation; concurrence criticized lack of explanation and urged greater transparency |
| Whether this case would develop Wisconsin law | Slamka argued review was warranted to develop law (basis for granting review) | Respondents argued further review would not serve meaningful purpose | Concurrence and per curiam concluded further review would not develop the law; DIG appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobb v. King, 403 Wis. 2d 198, 976 N.W.2d 410 (2022 WI 59) (example of a dismissal without explanation)
- Fond du Lac County v. S.N.W., 396 Wis. 2d 773, 958 N.W.2d 530 (2021 WI 41) (example of a dismissal without explanation)
- State v. Kloss, 390 Wis. 2d 685, 939 N.W.2d 564 (2020 WI 26) (example of a dismissal without explanation)
- Halbman v. Barrock, 378 Wis. 2d 17, 902 N.W.2d 248 (2017 WI 91) (example of a dismissal without explanation)
- Smith v. Anderson, 374 Wis. 2d 715, 893 N.W.2d 790 (2017 WI 43) (example where the Court explained its DIG)
- Michael J. Waldvogel Trucking, LLC v. LIRC, 339 Wis. 2d 248, 810 N.W.2d 811 (2012 WI 28) (example where the Court provided reasons for DIG)