From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Mar 10, 2000
2000 WI 22 (Wis. 2000)

Opinion

Case No.: 98-1737.

Oral Argument: February 29, 2000.

Opinion Released: March 10, 2000. Opinion Filed: March 10, 2000.

REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Affirmed. Reported at: 229 Wis.2d 132, 598 N.W.2d 262 (Ct.App. 1999 — Published)

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for St. Croix County, SCOTT R. NEEDHAM, Judge.

For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Eric J. Magnuson, John B. Lunseth II and Rider, Bennett, Egan Arundel, LLP, Minneapolis, and Daniel W. Hildebrand and DeWitt Ross Stevens, Madison, and oral argument by Daniel W. Hildebrand.

For the plaintiff-respondent there was a brief by Michael R. Gray, Scott S. Payzant and Mackall, Crounse Moore, PLC, Minneapolis, and oral argument by Scott S. Payzant.



The court is equally divided on the question of whether the published decision of the court of appeals, Douglas-Hanson Co., Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co., No. 98-1737 (June 29, 1999), should be affirmed or reversed. Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY, and Justice DAVID T. PROSSER would affirm; Justice WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, Justice N. PATRICK CROOKS, and Justice DIANE S. SYKES would reverse. Justice JON P. WILCOX did not participate.

¶ 2. Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.


Summaries of

Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Mar 10, 2000
2000 WI 22 (Wis. 2000)
Case details for

Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co.

Case Details

Full title:DOUGLAS-HANSON COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BF GOODRICH…

Court:Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Date published: Mar 10, 2000

Citations

2000 WI 22 (Wis. 2000)
2000 WI 22
607 N.W.2d 621

Citing Cases

Zimmerman v. Logemann

. 2d 713, 726, 751 N.W.2d 351, 358 (4-3 decision holding that economic loss doctrine applies to "common-law…

Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.

rine to misrepresentation claims; the case tested the continued viability of the court of appeals' decision…