What’s Good for the Goose . . .

Earlier this week, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in In Re Sherwin-Williams Co. The court upheld Judge Lynn Adelman’s decision not to recuse himself from a case pending before him in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Burton v. American Cyandamid, et al. 

Sherwin-Williams is currently before Adelman as a defendant in a personal injury action involving lead paint, heard in diversity jurisdiction. S-W believed “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (the relevant legal standard) because he had written an article defending the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s controversial lead paint decision in Thomas v. Mallett, 2005 WI 129.  (The article is Adelman & Fite, Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Critics, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 425 (2007)). In the article, Adelman defended the Court’s 04-05 term generally and praised Thomas particularly as a “positive development” which ensured that “the doors of the courthouse remain open.” Id. at 446. 

Based on this characterization, S-W sought his recusal in this case. 

Continue ReadingWhat’s Good for the Goose . . .

What Do Offshore Wind Farms Have To Do With the Disintegration of Contract Law in Wisconsin?

Answer: They are the subjects of this year’s top student comments in the Marquette Law Review.  The winners of the Gold and Silver Quill Awards were announced at last week’s Law Review banquet.  Marvin Bynum won the Gold for “Testing the Waters: Assessing Wisconsin’s Regulatory Climate for Offshore Wind Projects,” while Donald Stroud won the Silver for “Beyond Deception: Finding Prudential Boundaries between Breach of Contract and Deceptive Trade Practice Act Violations in Wisconsin.”  Both papers are on SSRN; “Testing the Waters” is here, and “Beyond Deception” is here. The abstracts appear after the jump.  Congratulations to Marvin and Tripp for this well-deserved recognition!

Continue ReadingWhat Do Offshore Wind Farms Have To Do With the Disintegration of Contract Law in Wisconsin?

More Developments at the Wisconsin Supreme Court

I have to say that I was surprised by Justice Gableman’s decision to file a motion asking Justice Pat Crooks to recuse himself from his pending disciplinary case. I understand the rationale. Justice Crooks did make remarks pertaining to some of the issues in the disciplinary proceeding in the course of his writings in Allen v. State. Because he had not had the benefit of full briefing and oral argument, these comments might raise concern that he had prejudged the issue. His reference to the comments of Justice Gableman’s attorney and Justice Gableman’s failure to repudiate them might be seen as importing an extraneous matter into the disciplinary proceeding. What Jim Bopp said in the course of that proceeding and whether or not Justice Gableman denounces his comments has nothing to do with the issues in that proceeding which are limited to whether the Reuben Mitchell ad violated SCR 60.06(3)(c).

Continue ReadingMore Developments at the Wisconsin Supreme Court