*1 Representative of as Personal M. Yvette Maurin, Leigh Shay deceased, Maurin, of the Estate Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant, Individually and as Personal Yvette Maurin, M. Shay Leigh Mau Representative of of the Estate Plaintiff-Respondent, Joseph Maurin, rin, and Plaintiff, Inc., Quad/Graphics, v. Physicians Insurance M.D., Gordon Hall, Company Patients Inc., and Wisconsin, of Defendants-Appellants- Compensation Fund, Cross-Respondents. Supreme Court 29, 2004. Decided October No. 00-0072. 2004 129WI 655.) (Also reported in 688 N.W.2d for reconsidera- The motion 1. PER CURIAM. ¶ denied, costs. with $50.00 tion is
18 by Litigation ¶ motion the 2. The filed Section of the State Bar to file an brief amicus memorandum and support in of statement the motion for is reconsideration *2 granted. partici-
¶ BUTLER, B. JR., J., 3. LOUIS did not pate. {dissent-
¶ ABRAHAMSON, 4. SHIRLEY S. C.J. ing) my my opinion . I continue in dissent because the wisely. fairly court acted has not or procedure present ¶ 5. The court's in the case goes directly integrity. to its institutional As was stated majority opinion, majority in the concurrence to the the decided the case on an argued by not raised, issue briefed or parties.
the ¶ 6. The motion for reconsideration is based on public good appellate process the derived from an that hearing perspectives. a ensures full of adversarial The way judicial fair to conduct allow business is to opportunity the (and amicus) parties any dispute an to a upon by rationale initiated and relied the court. appellate process ¶ If 7. the adversarial is defec- process tive, I it case, and think was in the instant the only poses system not a threat to the adversarial and to integrity substantially institutional but also increases wrong the the likelihood court will reach a decision on impor- the merits. The motion for reconsideration raises contemplated majority tant in considerations not the opinion.
¶ forth, the I this 8. For reasons set would set case re-argument. I for the a motion dissent from denial of for reconsideration.
¶ 9. I am authorized to state that Justice N. joins PATRICK dissent. CROOKS this
19