From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vill. of Elm Grove v. Brefka

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Oct 22, 2013
2013 WI 86 (Wis. 2013)

Opinion

No. 2011AP2888.

2013-10-22

VILLAGE OF ELM GROVE v. Richard K. BREFKA.

Douglas James Hoffer, de la Mora & de la Mora, Elm Grove, WI. Andrew Mishlove, Law Offices of Andrew Mishlove, Milwaukee, WI.


Douglas James Hoffer, de la Mora & de la Mora, Elm Grove, WI. Andrew Mishlove, Law Offices of Andrew Mishlove, Milwaukee, WI.
Lauren Stuckert, Law Offices of Andrew Mishlove, Glendale, WI.

Attorney Andrew Mishlove has filed a motion requesting that this court issue an order that editorially revises the written decision in the above-entitled matter. Specifically, he requests that the court editorially revise the opinion to reflect in a footnote that “Attorney Mishlove was first retained in the matter subsequent to the time that the ten-day time limit for demanding a refusal hearing was missed.” He avers that “Mr. Brefka, or his predecessor counsel, missed that time limit several months before the date that Attorney Mishlove was retained.”

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that footnote 3 is editorially revised to add the following paragraph to the beginning of the footnote: “Finally, we note that Attorney Andrew Mishlove first made an appearance in this case subsequent to the time that the ten-day time limit for demanding a refusal hearing had expired. It appears that Mr. Brefka, or his predecessor counsel, missed the time prior to the date of Attorney Mishlove's appearance.” The second paragraph of footnote 3 will then begin, “Further, we note that T the municipal court....”


Summaries of

Vill. of Elm Grove v. Brefka

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Oct 22, 2013
2013 WI 86 (Wis. 2013)
Case details for

Vill. of Elm Grove v. Brefka

Case Details

Full title:VILLAGE OF ELM GROVE v. Richard K. BREFKA.

Court:Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Date published: Oct 22, 2013

Citations

2013 WI 86 (Wis. 2013)
2013 WI 86
350 Wis. 2d 724

Citing Cases

State v. Pleuss

The circuit court said that it had lost "subject matter jurisdiction," by which we understand the court to…

State v. Kozel

This opinion should not be read to address the issue. ¶33 Wisconsin Stat. § 343.305, "known as the implied…