627 N.W.2d at 492 Court division on affirming or reversing appellate decision3 citing casesnoting that charitable immunity doctrine in Wisconsin is largely defunct
- Doctor v. Pardue, 186 S.W.3d 4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006).published(noting that charitable immunity doctrine in Wisconsin is largely defunct)
- Laird Doctor v. Howard E. Pardue & Experimental Aircraft Ass'n, No. 01-03-00899-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 15, 2005).published(noting that charitable immunity doctrine in Wisconsin is largely defunct)
- Braick v. New York State Dep't of Health, 13 A.D.3d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004).publishedCo. of Wis., 243 Wis 2d 648, 663-664 , 627 NW2d 484, 492-493 [2001]).
627 N.W.2d at 493 Hospitals' status under agency law principles4 citing casesAs full-care modern health facilities, hospitals are no longer mere structures where physicians treated and cared for them patients.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
- AHS Hosp. Corp. v. Town of Morristown, 28 N.J. Tax 456 (N.J. Tax Ct. 2015).published(As full-care modern health facilities, hospitals are no longer mere structures where physicians treated and cared for them patients.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted))
- Terry Kuchera v. Jersey Shore Fam. Health Ctr. (073483), 111 A.3d 84 (N.J. 2015).published(As full-care modern health facilities, hospitals are no longer mere structures where physicians treated and cared for their patients.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted))
627 N.W.2d at 488 cited at this page1 citing case
- Jennifer Petkus v. Richland Cnty., 767 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2014).publishedCo. of Wisconsin, 243 Wis.2d 648 , 627 N.W.2d 484, 488 (2001); Pamperin v. Trinity Memorial Hospital, 144 Wis.2d 188 , 423 N.W.2d 848, 852 (1988); Scottsdale Ins.
243 Wis. 2d at 492 cited at this page1 citing case
- Braick v. New York State Dep't of Health, 13 A.D.3d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004).publishedCo. of Wis., 243 Wis 2d 648, 663-664 , 627 NW2d 484, 492-493 [2001]).
v.
Ondra BOND, Defendant-Appellant.
For the petitioner-respondent-petitioner the cause was argued by Marguerite M. Moeller, assistant attorney[*477] general, with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, attorney general.
For the defendant-appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Ellen Henak, assistant state public defender.
¶ 1. PER CURIAM.
The court is equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse the decision of the court of appeals. Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, and Justice David T. Prosser would affirm; Justice William A. Bablitch, Justice Jon P. Wilcox, and Justice N. Patrick Crooks would reverse. Justice Diane S. Sykes did not participate.
¶ 2. Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.
[†] Motion for reconsideration denied September 21, 2001.