Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Case No. 98-2795.Oral Argument: April 11, 2002.
Opinion Filed: June 25, 2002.
Page 446
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Dismissed.
For the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners there were briefs by Robert Horowitz, Barbara A. Neider and Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, Madison, and oral argument by Robert Horowitz.
For the defendant-respondent there was a brief by F. Thomas Creeron, III, assistant attorney general, and James E. Doyle, attorney general, and oral argument by Peter C. Anderson, assistant attorney general.
For the intervening defendants-respondents there was a brief by H. Dale Peterson, Sverre David Roang and Stroud, Willink Howard, LLC, Madison, and oral argument by H. Dale Peterson.
Page 447
¶ 1. PER CURIAM.
This case is before the court on a petition for review filed by the plaintiffs, John O. Norquist, Kevin M. Crawford, Michael R. Miller, Joseph Laux, Dan Thompson, Edward Huck, Gerald Jorgensen, Hunter Bohne, Janet Bohne, and Jill Bran (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the plaintiffs”). The plaintiffs seek review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, Norquist v. Zeuske, No. 98-2795, unpublished slip op. (Wis.Ct.App. Oct. 7, 1999), affirming the circuit court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint.
¶ 2. The underlying issue here is whether the plaintiffs have carried their burden to prove Wis. Stat. § 70.32(2r) unconstitutional. The Dane County Circuit Court, Reserve Judge Daniel L. LaRocque, presiding, dismissed the plaintiffs’ case after concluding that the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proving the statute’s unconstitutionality. The court of appeals affirmed, and we subsequently accepted the plaintiffs’ petition for review.
¶ 3. At oral argument, held on April 11, 2002, plaintiffs’ counsel noted that the plaintiffs seek only prospective relief. Consequently, plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that this case is moot if we uphold the Department of Revenue (DOR) regulations implementing Wis. Stat. §70.32(2r), providing for use-value assessment of agricultural land as of January 1, 2000, as presented before us this term in Mallo v. Departmentof Revenue, 2002 WI 70, 253 Wis.2d 391, 645 N.W.2d 853. Today we uphold the validity of the DOR regulations in Mallo; therefore, we follow plaintiff’s counsel’s concession and dismiss this case as moot.
¶ 4. For the reasons set forth, we conclude that our decision inMallo makes this case moot, and we dismiss the petition for review.
Page 448
By the Court. — The review of the decision of the court of appeals is dismissed.
¶ 5. DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate.
Page 449