HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross Petitioner,
v.
LABOR & INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION, Defendant-Co-Appellant-Petitioner,
Guenther GIESKE, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross Petitioner,
v.
LABOR & INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION, Defendant-Co-Appellant-Petitioner,
Edward BOHN, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross Petitioner,
v.
LABOR & INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION, Defendant-Co-Appellant-Petitioner,
Emmerich DRAWITSCH, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Oral argument September 6, 1995.
Decided October 24, 1995.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
For the defendants-appellants-petitioners there were briefs by David L. Weir and Zubrensky, Padden, Horwitz & Weir, Milwaukee and oral argument by David L. Weir.
For the defendant-co-appellant-petitioner the cause was argued by Richard Briles Moriarty, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, attorney general.
For the plaintiff-respondent-cross petitioner there were briefs by Thomas M. Rohe and Otjen, Van Ert, Stangle, Lieb & Weir, S.C., Milwaukee and oral argument by Thomas M. Rohe.
Amicus curiae brief was filed by Michael H. Gillick and Murphy, Gillick, Wicht, & Prachthauser, Milwaukee for Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers.
Amicus curiae brief was filed by Philip Lehner and Capwell & Berthelsen, Brookfield, for Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce.
Amicus curiae brief was filed by Joseph R. Long, II and Relles, Meeker & Borns and Betsy J. Abramson and Elder Law Center, all of Madison, for Elder Law Center of the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
DONALD W. STEINMETZ, J.
This is a review of a decision of the court of appeals affirming an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county, Richard G. Harvey, Jr., Reserve Judge, which concluded that the Labor and Industry Relations Commission's (LIRC) interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 102.555(8) (1993-94)1 directly contravenes the plain language of the statute and was therefore not to be granted deference. We conclude that LIRC's interpretation...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
