tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post7118795356599493074..comments2023-10-28T08:02:44.565-05:00Comments on illusory tenant: Wisconsin professor professes puzzling professionsillusory tenanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-91417249149122108622010-07-08T10:17:56.774-05:002010-07-08T10:17:56.774-05:00"You might want to quote what I actually said..."You might want to quote what I actually said ... '[N]o one really thinks it's necessary to resolve the case.'"<br /><br />Is that so.<br /><br />¶18 The recommendation of the Panel has failed. Where the summary judgment has failed and the statutes do not provide an answer for proceeding other than by jury trial, Wis. Stat. § 757.87(1),(2), <b>it remains necessary to resolve the matter</b> in accordance with the governing statute to the extent possible. When this court cannot reach a decision because of a deadlock, <b>it is incumbent on this court to ensure that a tribunal decide this matter.</b><br /><br />Emphases added.<br /><br />Don't worry, I read your quote. It's unavailing.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-22734861690017116542010-07-08T08:28:45.804-05:002010-07-08T08:28:45.804-05:00You might want to quote what I actually said rathe...You might want to quote what I actually said rather than the author's paraphrase of it. It was in the very next paragraph:<br /><br />“A jury verdict, either for or against Justice Gableman, would not and actually, given the reasoning expressed in their writings, should not, change anyone’s mind since no one really thinks it’s necessary to resolve the case.”<br /><br />The reason this is so, as I explain <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=20692053&postID=1878498742821583448" rel="nofollow">here</a>, is that neither group thinks that there are any unresolved issues of material fact. Both were quite able to resolve the merits based upon the undisputed facts and, if you read and consider what they said, there is no way that anything a jury might do would - or should - change their minds. The reason that the case should be over is that the impasse can't be broken and the Judicial Commission has the burden of proof.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.com