Hubbard v. Messer

Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, Neil S. Hubbard,

v. Degree Systems, Shaun Messer, Defendant- d/b/a Appellant.

Supreme Court argument September No. 02-1701-FT. Oral 2003.— Decided November 2003 WI 145 (Also 676.) reported in 673 N.W.2d plaintiff-respondent-petitioner For the there were by Wright, LLC, H. briefs Erwin Steiner and Steiner & argument by Claire, Eau and oral Erwin H. Steiner. defendant-appellant by For the there was a brief Christopher Aberg Riley, Bloom, Weld, R. Joel L. argument by Ricci, S.C., Claire, Prenn & Eau and oral Aberg. Joel L. by Timothy

An amicus curiae brief was filed G. Timothy Costello, Costello, C. Kamin and Krukowski & S.C., Milwaukee, on behalf of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. by Raymond

An amicus curiae brief was filed J. Amy Doyle, Pollen, Crivello, Mentkowski, J. Carlson & Municipal Milwaukee, on behalf of Wisconsin Mutual Company Insurance and Wisconsin Counties Associa- Phillips tion, John J. LLP, Prentice and Prentice & Milwaukee, on behalf of Wisconsin Counties Associa- tion. by

An amicus curiae brief was filed Aaron N Hal- Lounsbury stead, Kathleen Meter Shneidman, Ehlke, S.C., Hawks & Madison, on behalf of District 40, AFSCME, Council AFL-CIO and Carol Gonzales. ¶ 1. ABRAHAMSON, SHIRLEY S. C.J. This is a published appeals review of a reversing decision of the court of judgment of the Circuit Court Eau County, Judge.1 Claire Lenz, Paul J. The circuit court granted summary judgment Hubbard, to Neil S. employee, concluding that because certain were due and on the deadline set Wis. Stat. (2001-02),2 Degree Sys- Shaun Messer d/b/a employer, penalty tems, the owed a civil (referred wages) to in the statutes as increased of 70% unpaid pursuant of the amount of 109.11(2), governs wage which claim ac- tions. appeals judgment

¶ 2. The court of reversed the the circuit court and remanded the matter to the circuit Messer, Hubbard v. App 2003 WI 259 Wis. 2d N.W.2d 475. 2 § provides: Wisconsin Stat.

Every employer monthly every pay employee shall as often as engaged business, employer's except in the those en- gaged logging operations labor, wages and farm all earned employee day days prior to a not than more 31 to the date of payment. All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted. summary judgment

court with directions to enter for employer, dismissing employee's the prejudice. with claims appeals

The court of concluded that Wis. (2)(b) § imposes wages Stat. 109.11 if civil not unpaid employer delinquent are due and after the 109.03(1), § days provided than more as but if, rather at the time a commences, circuit court action wages employee unpaid.3 are due to an and remain appeals Thus, the court of if concluded that an em- ployer belatedly pays wages in full before commence- employee ment of action, a circuit court does not penalties. action for civil present ¶ 3. At issue in the case is whether the phrase due and in Wis. Stat. (2)(b), penalties provision, 109.11 the civil refers to unpaid by due and deadline for the payment wages or to when a circuit court action commences. ¶ 4. For the forth, reasons set we hold (2)(b) impose 109.11 does not employee fully paid

when due an have been at the time a circuit court action is commenced. dispute

¶ 5. The facts are not in and are set forth appeals. in the of the decision court of It is sufficient for purposes of this review to note that in 1999 the em- ployer pay wages employee failed to to the and the complaint Department filed a with the (DWD). Development employer Workforce When pay computed by did not the amount DWD, attorney.4 DWD referred the case to the district attorney employee's private district and the counsel advised the would enforce 3 Hubbard, 259 Wis. 2d 109.11(l)(c). See Wis. Stat. rights through a

his small claims court action. After delay, employer checks, additional issued two July totaling $3,873.91 in in second one satisfac- tion of the full amounts calculated as DWD owing employee. to the The cashed both any wages checks and not claim not does been paid. September 14, 2001, 6. On com- seeking a

menced circuit court action a civil 100% penalty under $3,873.91. of summary judgment, arguing The moved for prior that all had been fourteen months commencement of the action and that employee therefore the penalties

had no cause of action for the civil granted summary as a matter of The circuit law. court judgment awarding employee, favor of unpaid of due at the of 70% the statutory wages. payment deadline for the court holding appeals judgment, reversed the that civil only wages are available if at the were granted commencement of a circuit court action. We question review resolve this law. reviewing grant summary judgment,

¶ 7. In a appellate applies court the standards set forth in the same manner as the circuit Summary judgment proper upheld court. and will be only material fact exist and on review when no issues of question presented.5 of law is question presented in this sum- 8. The of law mary judgment is the of Wis. Stat. Thomack, 650, 659, 2d See Miller v. 210 Wis. 563 N.W.2d (1997). 109.11(2)(b): Does the statute refer to payment wages, at the deadline for or does the statute refer to due and at the time a circuit court action commences? This court questions independently determines of law of the cir- appeals, benefiting cuit court and court of but from the analyses of these courts.6 goal interpreting

¶ 9. Our a statute is to dis- give legislature.7 cern and effect to the intent of the Statutory interpretation begins language with the the statute. Each word should be looked at so as not to any portion superfluous.8 render of the statute But single, "courts must not look at a isolated sentence or portion language of a sentence" instead of the relevant statutory provi- of the entire Furthermore, statute.9 sion must be read the context of the whole statute to interpretation. avoid an unreasonable or absurd Stat- relating subject utes to the same matter should be read together possible.10 and harmonized when A cardinal interpreting interpreta- rule in statutes is to favor an purpose tion that will fulfill the of a statue over an objective that defeats the manifest of an 6 Cole, See State v. 59, 12, 167, 2003 WI 262 Wis. 2d ¶ 663 N.W.2d 700. 7 Id., Szulczewski, State v. (citing 13 495, 504, ¶ 216 2dWis. (1999)). 574 N.W.2d 660 8 Co., Physicians Landis v. Ins. 86, 16, 2001 WI 245 ¶ Wis. Servs., Inc., Alberte v. Anew Health Care 1, 893; 2d 628 N.W.2d 7, 10, 587, 2000 WI 232 2d ¶ Wis. 605 N.W.2d 515. 9 Landis, Alberte, 1, (quoting 245 Wis. 2d 16 232 Wis. 2d ¶ 10). 587, ¶ 10 Cole, Leitner, State v. 167, (citing 262 Wis. 2d 341). 30, WI 2d 646 N.W.2d legislative act.11Thus a court must ascertain the intent language of the statute in relation to its from objective history, scope, context, accomplished, intended to be including consequences of alterna- interpretations.12 tive begin language

¶ 10. We with the of the statute. grants right employees a Wisconsin Stat. against employers unpaid wages action employee. for all due to the provides that

Wisconsin Stat. may in a claim action a circuit court order the pay to the "in addition to the amount due and . .. to an increased of not more than 100% of the amount unpaid." of those Section in full reads as follows: wage

In that is after the a claim action commenced department completed investigation has its under s. attempts compromise and its and to settle (1), wage may claim under sub. a circuit court order the in, employer pay employee, to the addition to the wages unpaid amount due and to an of penalties specified addition to or in lieu of the criminal (3), wages in sub. increased not more than 100% wages unpaid. amount due and those added). (2)(b) § (emphasis Stat. 109.11 Wis. 109.11(2)(b) § ¶ not ex- 11. Stat. does Wisconsin unpaid," plicitly phrase due and nor define the wages the time at which are to be deter- does it state unpaid. mined due and as

11 Davis, 136, 13, 986, 2d 637 State v. 2001 WI Wis. ¶ 62. N.W.2d Davis, Cole, 167, (citing 2d State v. 2001 WI 262 Wis. ¶ 62). 986, 2d 248 Wis. 637 N.W.2d ¶ seeking employer

¶ 12. In fill void, this arguments supporting forwards three textual his view phrase "wages wages that the due and refers to unpaid due and when a circuit court action commences. employer argues ¶ First, 13. that because Wis. begins wage Stat. with the words "in a legislature action," claim intended that the civil penalty only apply they wage to the facts as "in exist wages claim action." When have been before a argues, they claim action commenced, he are no longer due and in the claim action. employer argues Second, 14. that if the legislature intended to make civil available wages prescribed by all that were due at the time chapter 109, it would not have included the word 109.11(2)(b). "unpaid" argues in Wis. Stat. He that the "unpaid" phrase "wages use unpaid" the word in the due and indicates that an action to assess civil may only wages yet commence as to those that have not paid, penalty provision been wages if that covered all paid untimely, "unpaid"

that were then the word superfluous. would be made Third, reads that a may employer pay circuit court employee, order to the "in addition to the amount of due and unpaid. . . increased of not more than 100% unpaid." the amount of argues only "in words addition to" mean if wages an commences an action to collect that unpaid may are due and a circuit court award civil penalties against employer. argues an He that the words "in addition" mean that a circuit court must first unpaid wages award the to which an is entitled award, and then if the circuit court such deems penalty wages appropriate, percentage an additional 100%) unpaid. (up Thus, due and he of the legislature argues, did not create a cause of action the independent the distinct and from for the wages. underlying unpaid cause of action for Although arguments merit, these we 16. employer's interpretation not does conclude phrase necessarily possibility that the rule out the and due and means those due statutory payment deadline for as of the literally say wages. not The text of the statute does legislature employer arguing. If in- the what deny employees access to the courts once the tended to legislature delinquent wages fully paid, could are clearly directly. intent more To have stated this employer's position, to shuffle reach the we would have and make several inferences. We should several clauses adopt employer's interpretation without exam- not ining history, purposes of context, and the Wis. 109.11(2)(b). § Stat. arguments, Moving beyond the textual § place next to asks us 109.01(4). § Under Wis. Stat.

in the context of 109.01(4), "wage deficiency" differ- is defined as "the paid required to be the amount law ence between actually employee." Accord- and the amount implies ing employer, definition this to the deficiency" "wage if, at the time the there can be no no difference between commenced, action is there is actually paid. wages required paid and the to be deficiency"; "wage it does not refer Yet legislature only wages unpaid. If the refers 109.11(2)(b), deficiency" phrase "wage had used might simpler. however, and not, did It our task be history, exploration context, further without purpose, unwilling incorporate meaning we are such phrase today. into the we consider employee ¶ In contrast, 18. asks tous read § Wis. Stat. in the context of Wis. Stat. 109.03(5), § provides employee which that each "shall" right against any employer a of action for the full employee's wages regular amount of the due on each pay day wages [civil penalties] "and for increased as 109.11(2)." provided mandatory, in s. The word "shall"is employee urges guarantees and the that this statute (the employees right wages" pen- a to "increased civil alty) separate in a civil action as a cause of action from underlying wages. cause of action for The urges together, that when the two statutes are read they mean that due and refer to payment as of the deadline for wages.13 fully persuaded

¶ by interpre- areWe not this § tation. While we could read Wis. Stat. as creating separate a cause of action for increased (the penalty), equally possible legis- civil it is underlying wages lature intended that an action for joined. unwilling adopt be We are employee's examining without the his- 109.11(2)(b). tory purposes and the history 20. We look to the of Wis. Stat. (2)(b) guidance legislature's 109.11 about the in- tent. relies on the following language: "The

wage claim [chapter law requires employers 109] pay wages promptly. provides for, The law encourages, enforcement DWD, grants but it also private right of action against any employer who does promptly pay not the full amount of Trans., due." German Dep't v. Wis. 223 Wis. (Ct. 1998). 2d 589 N.W.2d 651 App. legislature adopted 21. The precursor to in 1993. Under the 109.11(2), § penalties were calculated on the civil wages employer's pay an failure to when due basis of pen- chapter a under 109. The statute calculated civil days alty sliding depending on the number of on a scale beginning payment wages one month after late, of was wages capped penalty due; the was at were $500.14 replacing rigid, system

¶ 22. In formulaic wages, legislature based on the due date of the making penalty begin omitted the reference immediately upon employer's pay an failure to legis- chapter Instead, the when due under 109. granted circuit courts discretion to award civil lature unpaid," explicit due without initially reference to the date were payable chapter under 109. statutory history Our review of the argument supports of

evolution away legislature moving was in the 1993 revision the begin immediately upon making penalty the civil from pay wages employer's when due under failure chapter 109. (1991-92) provided as fol Wisconsin Stat.

lows: (1), every penalties provided in sub. In to the criminal addition payment violating chapter of shall he liable for the this wages: delay following does not exceed 3 increased 10% if the days, days; delay not exceed 10 if is more than 3 hut does 20% the days, days; delay not exceed 20 if the is more than 10 but does 30% days, days; delay not exceed 30 if the is more than 20 but does 40% days; days; delay in no shall is more than 30 but event 50% if the liability $500. exceed such increased testing validity

¶ 24. In assertion, of this we legislature's purpose adopting look to the the statute 109.11(2)(b). guidance interpreting for additional step beyond Our first § is to look the narrow focus of purpose chapter to the broader generally. Doing so leaves little doubt in our minds that legislative objective chapter the prompt payment wages 109 is to foster the employees. due to Wisconsin Chapter right 109 "concerns the to receive '[It] simple their proposition: when due.... flows from a wages, they if workers are not their "15 and their families will suffer.' provisions chapter protect 25. Various employees through plethora of administrative and employees disputes court remedies for to settle and wages. legislature collect their The enacted administra- penalties designed encourage tive, civil, and criminal to employers pay wages timely in a manner.16 prompt payment employees 26. While is a significant, perhaps important, goal and the most of the (2)(b). legislature, purpose it is not the sole of 109.11 changes The 1993 to the statute demonstrate a com- promoting wage disputes mitment to the resolution of quickly, efficiently, voluntarily and with the assistance 15 Cos., Inc., Jacobson v.Am. Tool 384, 400, 222 2dWis. 588 (Ct. 1998) App. N.W.2d 67 (quoting v. Milwaukee Econ. Pfister (Ct. Corp., 243, 268, Dev. 216 Wis. 2d App. N.W.2d 554 1998)). 16See, 109.03(5) e.g., §§ (employee lien); 109.03(6) (employee recovery expenses); (employee 109.11(l)(b) (administrative lien); 109.11(l)(c) (refer penalty); wage ral of claim to district attorney or Department Wisconsin 109.11(2)(a) (civil Justice); 109.11(2)(b) (civil penalties); 109.11(3) (criminal penalties); penalties). (DWD). Department Development

of the of Workforce recognizes legitimate wage disputes The statute in often arise disputes the course of business and that such may stem from innocent mistakes or miscal- penalty culations. The § revised of Wis. Stat. 109.11(2)(b) give employers appears in time to conduct self-audits order to correct inevitable mis- complicated payroll systems any takes in penalty.17 and avoid civil employees paid wages as be

Just should promptly, employers and need to be made aware of such mistakes and be allowed to resolve disputes arising judicial sys- from them of the outside tem. goal, legisla- accomplish In order to this responsibility

ture entrusts tigate DWD with inves- encourage employers claims, to self-audit when necessary, disputes lengthy settle without financially litigation. encourage prohibitive To use DWD, halves the available penalty bypassed if the and a claim is DWD is directly legislature's pursued in The circuit court. deci- significant disparity sion to create a between the statu- drafting discussing changes that were record ultimately primarily codified in focused on how changes penalty provisions ultimately expedite in the would processes resolving by giving the disputes the administrative agency authority levy penalties against repeat offenders. Nevertheless, purposes for our this discussion instructive legislature's give agency the intent to the that it demonstrates majority wage disputes encourage teeth and to to resolve erroneously underpaid employee an "to who had wage problems payment conduct a self-audit to correct similar See Act involving employees." Drafting other Record of 1993 Working DILHR Smarter and Better in the Process: Reforms Standards, 1-2, Labor Legislative at at Reference available Bureau, Madison, WI.

tory penalties depending available on the DWD's in- signals strong legislative preference volvement wage disputes administrative resolution of and the objectives concomitant that underlie administrative generally: expedient, specialized law economical, and disputes. resolution of inquiry

¶ statutory history 28. From our into and 109.11(2)(b) purpose, § we conclude that Wis. Stat. mutually reinforcing principles the culmination of two legislature sought encouraging to balance: prompt payment wages encouraging use of the costly litigation. DWD decrease the burden of We proceed by considering, light principles, of these competing interpretations which of the two 109.11(2)(b) parties promotes forwarded best legislative objectives. these employee primarily prin- 29. The relies on the ciple legislature paid intended to be promptly and that the statute should be construed to employers' rapid payment wages. maximize In order end, achieve this maintains that de- spite any payment settlement of claim and full, penal- sustain a cause of action for civil attorney ties and fees. employee's

¶ 30. The contention is that if civil apply only under Wis. Stat. wages due when a circuit court action commences, then employers pay wages could fail or refuse to at the payment wages. Payment deadline for the prolonged years employers could be for several long they could avoid so as day overdue at least one before a circuit court action commenced. Moreover, asserts that inter-

preting deny a cause of action for civil who receive a full employers settlement of all overdue wages financially forces dis- tressed into a Hobson's choice: employees check, either the get badly must cash needed funds and lose the civil under or for wait the and retain wages the of civil payment possibility penalties. 32. The that employee argues employer's of Wis. Stat. encompass due and at the commencement

only wages action does not account for the fact that employees have lost the use of the and have incurred unpaid wages that come from an bills as hardships inability pay become due.18 they employee argues also that the of the decision court of

appeals prior in this case is in direct conflict with decisions of appeals. proposition, this court as well as the court of For this cases, State, cites American Federation two County County, Municipal Employees Local 1901 v. Brown 728, (1988), 146 Wis. 2d 432 N.W.2d 571 and Kenosha Fire Kenosha, Fighters, City Local No. 414 2d Union v. 168 Wis. (Ct. 1992), App. arguing 484 N.W.2d152 that both of them principle chapter requires imposition stand for that reason, penalties, regardless any delay greater of civil of the days paying wages than 31 retroactive and that an action can solely payment wages. be commenced for the of back We find First, inapposite predate these cases for two reasons. cases both away the 1993 amendment that shifted from mandatory imposition penalty wages after the cases, therefore, pay wages expired. deadline to These cannot proposition' phrase "wages stand for the any delay greater in the current means than 31 statute Second, directly days. the cases cited do not penalty address an action to recover could be whether in Kenosha Fire maintained after were because due, Fighters it was determined that were not see Employees 2d at and in Local 1901 the court deter- Although agree employee's we in- terpretation ostensibly provide could the maximum unscrupulous employers deterrent effect on who wrongfully wages, withhold we are concerned if that we interpret employee as the proposes, might unintentionally we create an incentive employers pay wages timely for not to in a manner. Specifically, employee's

¶ proposed 34. under the interpretation, employers would have little incentive to promptly they employees settle claims if knew penalties regard- maintained a cause of action for civil underlying fully of less whether the claims were settled. employers might delay payment employees Thus to on theory employers that will be liable for penalties regardless they wage claim of whether settle a promptly.

¶ Furthermore, as one of the amici in this case points employee's argument presupposes out, the that employers correctly predict day could on which employers would file suit so that could satisfy the claim before the initiation of an action.19The any fact an free to file an action at time encourages employer pay promptly. employer argues 36. The further that the exist-

ing penalties provide criminal will a sufficient deterrent discourage payment wages. late of Wisconsin Stat. provides penalties employers criminal pay wages payable falsely who fail to or who deny validity the amount or of the with criminal though they may subject intent, even not be to civil good justified mined that delay cause in payment and that provisions chapter controlling 109 were not of the facts case, see 146 Wis. 2d at 739. 19Brief of Amicus Curiae Wisconsin Manufacturers & Com merce at 14.

penalties. Thus, the asserts that even without providing employees ability penal- to recover civil when, ties at the time action is commenced in circuit paid, court, all have been the criminal significant employers pay are a incentive for promptly potential stigma because costs liability. criminal penalties may not, 37. Criminal however, be a

significant employers pay wages incentive for may promptly. prove Criminal intent be hard to without pattern part employer. of conduct on the of the employ- Furthermore, criminal do not assist by providing compen- ees them with additional funds to delays payment wages expenses sate them for seeking payment. therefore contends employers payment that wages only bewill deterred from late of employees penalties can

when civil recover they recovering wage payments and the costs incur in employers.20According employer, from however, to the persuasive employees this rationale not is because do significant filing not incur costs in an administrative complaint penalties with the DWD and civil little make penalize employers employ- to sense when used before resulting ees had to the from bear financial burden litigation. the commencement of employee responds by predicting ¶ 38. The that adoption employer's interpretation of the will under- goal disputes mine of of administrative settlement encourage employees sidestep it will because engage in a to the He DWD and "race courthouse." argues employees if that are barred from access to the ("The Employees Local 2d at See 146 Wis. purpose penalties the ch. 109 is to recover the incurred costs by exnployee(s) recovering wage payments in from the employer."). they paid, if are are even once overdue

court attorneys chapter for set the deadline after well likely in employees actions circuit file claim are immediately clients' of their avoid the loss court penalty rights under Wis. the civil to recover expenses under a reasonable sum 109.03(6).21 employer's agree inter- under the 39. We bypassing option employees pretation have the preserve going in order to the courts first DWD recovering penalties possibility and ex- civil conceding possibility, do penses. however, we this In language recognize than little more provides with itself, which bypassing forum. The option the administrative necessarily in a employer's result not will expense and traffic because increase in court net litigation delays pursuing potential and the uncer- willingness tainty to exercise its court's of a circuit encourage granting will discretion pursu- many employees the DWD when to first utilize ing wage claims. problematic. Going A circuit to court ultimately no civil to award few or has discretion

court wage dispute expenses. result was the If the or misunderstanding, mistake, or a reason- honest of an very might dispute, not award court well a circuit able employee expenses an who rushes or to dispute bypasses alternative resolu- the into court and 109.03(6) provides: Stat. Wisconsin against employer a by employee the on an ... In an action party, may prevailing in addition to the ... the court allow claim costs, expenses. for a reasonable sum all other legislature provided through tion the the DWD. Avoid- presents precarious path employ- ance of the DWD a for ees. recognize extremely

¶ 41. We and are concerned may possibility employee placed the that an be in a position employer's difficult financial a of an as result pay timely wages refusal to in a However, fashion. as we tempered by above, have stated our concern be must reality employers rely the on should be able to agreed-upon wage disputes. settlement of when Indeed, already fully employee wages through an has recovered processes administrative the DWD we are less employee placed financially fearful that the in will be a position. vulnerable considering arguments,

¶ 42. After these we con- interpretation clude that that civil are only wages unpaid available when are at the commence- ment aof circuit court action will hasten resolution disputes employees and, therefore, these in leave a position appreciate better overall. While we that both employee proposed the interpretations and feasible ultimately statute,22

of the arewe re- quired way interpret in to the statute that is consis- language, statutory history, context, tent with and legislative goals underlying con- statute. We are The proposes possible interpretation a third 109.11(2)(b): and phrase due refers when a circuit court enters judgment. interpretation This is least favored because it would encourage prompt payment not would not on engage costly eliminate burden litigation. Such an employers would allow delay very pay until the last employees moment would not reimburse their inconveniences and litigating wage difficulties claims.

Ill by interpretation em- vinced that the forwarded the fully appeals ployer will more effectu- and the court of goals encouraging legislature's important of ate thé wage disputes rapid final of outside and resolution light goals, are courts in the In of these we and DWD. persuaded in to recover civil that order for penalties, wages remain due and at must in time a claim commences circuit court. action legislature's goals interpretation This best balances the by encouraging employers pay wages promptly, facili- to tating rapid disposition disputes, administrative of bringing finality and to settlements brokered process. parties on their own or the administrative Accordingly, ¶ that Wis. 43. we hold impose penalty does not a civil when fully to an at the due been a court commenced. time circuit action is By appeals the Court.—The decision of the court is affirmed. {concur- ROGGENSACK, PATIENCE D. J.

ring). agree reached in I with the conclusions majority separately point opinion. I However, write statutory analysis majority opinion's out that departure is a from that which statutory analysis has been this court's mode it not one that the court has discussed and is adopt. decided explained jurisprudence repeatedly has 45. Our question a law statute is Angela de v.

that we State ex rel. M.W. review novo. (1997); Kruzicki, 112, 121, 2d 561 729 209 Wis. N.W.2d Stockbridge DPI, 214, 219, Sch. 2d Dist. v. (1996). goal statutory interpretation N.W.2d96 Our give legislature's intent. ascertain effect Angela M.W., at Ball 121; 209 Wis. 2d v.Dist. No. Area Vocational, Educ., Bd. Technical and Adult 117 Wis. (1984). begin 529, 537-38, 2d 345 N.W.2d 389 We our language legislature with the has Angela M.W., to use in chosen the statute. 2d 209 Wis. give language plain ordinary at 121. We its meaning. County, 121; Id. at Bruno v. Milwaukee 2003 ¶28, 20, WI 260 Wis. 2d 660 If N.W.2d 656. language go face, clear is on its we need no further and simply apply Bruno, we it. 2d 20. a Wis. As general rule we not do review extrinsic sources unless ambiguity However, there is an in the if statute. language ambiguous, "scope, history, is we consult the subject object context, matter and statute" in legislative Ball, order to ascertain intent. 2d at ambiguous susceptible A 537-38. statute is if it is two interpretations. Angela M.W., or more reasonable 2dWis. at 121. majority opinion employs analytic

¶ 46. The ambiguous, pur- framework a statute that is while posely analyzing not whether ambiguous. change analysis, a This is our traditional opinion which is set out I above. offer no about whether statutory analysis ought changed. our mode of to be change statutory analysis However, when we majority opinion explaining majority without analysis, change court not has decided to its we changed. lead our we This readers to conclude that among can cause confusion those we write to assist opinions public. Accordingly, make our less to the useful respectfully I concur. I am authorized to state that Justices JON E join PATRICK this

WILCOX and N. CROOKS concur- rence.

Case Details

Case Name: Hubbard v. Messer

Court Name: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date Published: Nov 20, 2003

Citation: 673 N.W.2d 676

Docket Number: 02-1701-FT

Court Abbreviation: Wis.