This fall the Wisconsin Supreme Court will revisit the issue of whether to permit citation of unpublished Wisconsin Court of Appeals opinions. The issue is scheduled for hearing on October 14, 2008. The current rule forbids citation of unpublished opinions “as precedent or authority, except to support a claim of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or the law of the case.” Wis. Stat. § 809.23(3). In January, the Wisconsin Judicial Council filed a petition asking the court to amend the rule to permit citation of unpublished opinions “for [their] persuasive value.”
Kicking off a terrific speaker series at Marquette this semester, Dan Markel of Florida State and PrawfsBlawg fame is with us today to present his paper How Should Punitive Damages Work?. This is the second part of a multi-article series in which Dan is developing a comprehensive reform proposal for punitive damages law. Dan’s basic premise is that punitive damages should be reconceptualized around principles of retributive justice. To the extent that we want punitive damages to do other things (e.g., compensate victims for dignitary harms), Dan urges that we give those forms of damages different labels and treat them in a procedurally distinct manner from retributive damages. Notably, he would give retributive damages awards to the state, not private plaintiffs; plaintiffs would get merely a small finder’s fee ($10,000) and attorneys’ fees.
My colleagues Nadelle Grossman and Kali Murray have recently prepared this informative podcast regarding the implications for I.P. licensing of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Quanta Computer, Inc., v. LG Electronics, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 170 L.Ed. 2d 996, 76 USLW 4375 (June 9, 2008). I understand that this will be the first in an occasional series of podcasts on current issues in intellectual property prepared by Marquette’s I.P. professors. This is an exciting new venture, and I look forward to hearing their future productions.