There's a reason, 'splained by The Perfesser:
Because the new law went beyond that in giving the plaintiff an unlimited choice of venue, the law has a curious venue provision in the event of appeal. The losing side in the trial court can pick the district in which the appeal will be heard as long as it is not the district in which the trial court is located.
I am sure that this was intended to discipline plaintiff's unlimited choice of forum but it also enhances the opportunity for gamesmanship - and we see that in the case challenging the GAB's intent to conduct a more limited review of petitions.
Of course, the plaintiffs chose Waukesha because they expected it to be a favorable forum. Having lost, the GAB has now chosen District IV of the the Court of Appeals which embraces - Dane County. It certainly expects that District IV will be a more favorable forum.
I am sure that this was intended to discipline plaintiff's unlimited choice of forum but it also enhances the opportunity for gamesmanship - and we see that in the case challenging the GAB's intent to conduct a more limited review of petitions.
Of course, the plaintiffs chose Waukesha because they expected it to be a favorable forum. Having lost, the GAB has now chosen District IV of the the Court of Appeals which embraces - Dane County. It certainly expects that District IV will be a more favorable forum.
Really, really, really quiet in the MSM about that Dane County appeal, ain'a??
Sure, it stinks to high heaven, but blame the legislators who passed the law, not the MSM. They PURPOSELY set it up that way to give them an advantage, and as the professor stated, all lawyers "work to get their case into the best possible forum."
ReplyDeleteI believe that it was REPUBLICANS who crafted that particular legislation, but I'm not sure. One reaps what they sow.
Perhaps the GOP should then repeal that part of the law if it is so upsetting. Yeah, right!