WISCONSIN BELL, INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM’N, 2005 WI 23

279 Wis.2d 1, 693 N.W.2d 301

WISCONSIN BELL, INC., (d/b/a Ameritech Wisconsin), a Wisconsin corporation, Petitioner-Respondent-Cross-Appellant-Petitioner,[†] v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN, Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, SPRINT TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Excel Telecommunications, Inc., and ATT Communications of Wisconsin L.P., Co-Appellants-Cross-Respondents.

No. 02-3163.Supreme Court of Wisconsin.Oral argument October 26, 2004.
Decided March 17, 2005.

[†] Motion for Reconsideration denied 6-23-2005.

Page 2

REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Affirmed.

For the petitioner-respondent-cross-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by John E. Flanagan, Jordan J. Hemaidan an Michael Best Friedrich, LLP, Madison, and oral argument b John E. Flanagan.

For the respondent-appellant-cross-respondent there was a brief by Diane M. Ramthun, Steven Levine and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Madison, and oral argument by Diane M. Ramthun.

For the co-appellants-cross-respondents there was a brief b Peter L. Gardon, Stephen J. Liccione and Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, S.C., Madison (on behalf of Excel Telecommunications and Sprint Communications, Inc., L.P.); and by Arthur J. LeVasseur
and Fischer, Franklin Ford, Detroit, MI (on behalf of ATT Communications of Wisconsin, L.P.), and oral argument by Stephen J. Liccione.

¶ 1. PER CURIAM.

The court is equally divided on the question of whether the published decision of the

Page 3

court of appeals, Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, 2004 WI App 8, 269 Wis. 2d 409, 675 N.W.2d 242, should be affirmed or reversed. JUSTICE ANN WALSH BRADLEY, JUSTICE DAVID T. PROSSER, and JUSTICE LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR. would affirm; JUSTICE JON P. WILCOX, JUSTICE N. PATRICK CROOKS, and JUSTICE PATIENCE D. ROGGENSACK would reverse. CHIEF JUSTICE SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON did not participate.

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

Page 4

jdjungle