Comments on: Wisconsin Supreme Court follies: Heikkinen v. Archdiocese http://overlawyered.com/2007/10/wisconsin-supreme-court-follies-heikkinen-v-archdiocese/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wisconsin-supreme-court-follies-heikkinen-v-archdiocese Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sun, 27 May 2012 05:00:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: illusory tenant http://overlawyered.com/2007/10/wisconsin-supreme-court-follies-heikkinen-v-archdiocese/comment-page-1/#comment-9259 illusory tenant Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:30:31 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5454#comment-9259 "the church, which ended up being held responsible on the principle of <i>respondeat superior<i> ..." False. Please read the Court of Appeals decision.</i></i> “the church, which ended up being held responsible on the principle of respondeat superior …”

False. Please read the Court of Appeals decision.

]]> By: jkoerner http://overlawyered.com/2007/10/wisconsin-supreme-court-follies-heikkinen-v-archdiocese/comment-page-1/#comment-9258 jkoerner Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:59:09 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5454#comment-9258 Her post says that the conservative block voted for the plaintiffs - is she wrong or the "liberal activist" court labal not an issue in this case? <i>[That's not what her post says. -- TF.]</i> Her post says that the conservative block voted for the plaintiffs – is she wrong or the “liberal activist” court labal not an issue in this case?

[That's not what her post says. -- TF.]

]]>