State v. Henley, 800 N.W.2d 418

On December 8, 2010, the court granted Yasmine Clark's motion to file a non-party amicus brief in support of Henley's motion for reconsideration.
On December 18, 2010, Clark filed an amicus brief; Henley's motion for reconsideration was denied; per curiam issued July 12, 2011.
Three justices would grant the amicus relief; attached writing by Chief Justice Abrahamson, Justice Bradley, and Justice Crooks.
Three justices would deny the amicus relief, arguing the brief does not address any issue in Henley’s underlying motion; attached writing by Justice Prosser, Justice Ziegler, and Justice Gableman.
The court is equally divided on whether to grant the relief; Justice Roggensack withdrew from participation.
The majority (Abrahamson, Bradley, Crooks) disagree with the dissenters and would not retroactively deny the amicus motion and would revise footnote 29.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to grant amicus relief to revise footnote 29	Clark seeks revision of footnote 29	Some justices argue denial since footnote 29 is dicta and does not affect Henley	Would grant the relief
Whether the court should delete or modify footnote 29	Amicus urges deletion/modification to avoid misreading	Footnote should stand or not be retroactively changed	Would delete or modify footnote 29 as amicus requests
Whether the court should address Clark's amicus request given non-party status	Clark seeks unilateral amendment in an unrelated case	Court should not consider non-party requests without full briefing	Declines to address the issue raised by Clark's amicus brief

Elections Bd. Of State of Wis. v. Wis. Mfrs. & Commerce, 227 Wis. 2d 650 (1999) (relevance of federal decisions to state proceedings; not controlling authority)
State v. Harris, 199 Wis.2d 227 (1996) (limits on reliance on federal decisions in state matters)
Thompson v. Village of Hales Corners, 115 Wis.2d 289 (1983) (federal decisions are informative but not conclusive in state court interpretations)
State v. Henley, 328 Wis. 2d 544 (2010) (lead paint and risk-contribution doctrine; footnote 29 context)