Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. McCallum
Decision Date | 19 September 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 02-1204.,02-1204. |
Citation | Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. McCallum, 2002 WI App 259, 655 NW2d 474, 258 Wis. 2d 210 (Wis. App. 2002) |
Parties | DAIRYLAND GREYHOUND PARK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott McCALLUM, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Wisconsin, and George Lightbourn, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Administration, Defendants-Respondents. |
Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Ronald R. Ragatz, Peter A. Peshek and Mindy Rowland Buenger of DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C., Madison.
On behalf of the defendants-respondents, the cause was submitted on the brief of John S. Greene and Thomas C. Bellavia, assistant attorney generals, James E. Doyle,attorney general, and Raymond P. Taffora of Michael, Best & Friedrich LLP, Madison.
A nonparty brief was filed by Carol J. Brown of Brown & LaCounte, LLP, Madison, Douglas B.L. Endreson and William R. Perry of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, Washington, D.C., Howard Bichler, Hertel, Jennifer L. Nutt Carleton and Rory E. Dilweg of Oneida Law Office, Oneida, Paul Stenzel and Douglas William Huck, Bowler, Sheila D. Corbine, Black River Falls, Kevin L. Osterbauer,Odanah, Larry Leventhal of Larry Leventhal & Associates, Minneapolis, MN., Kris M. Goodwill, Hayward, Jeffery A. Crawford,Milwaukee, Eric N. Dahlstrom of Rohnstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Frye, LLP, Phoenix, AZ., Andrew S. Caulum of Caulum Law Office, S.C., Madison, and David M. Ujke, Bayfield on behalf of the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin, Ho-Chunk Nation, Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Sokaogon Chippewa Community (Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians), Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, and Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians.
A nonparty brief was filed by Alexis H. Johnson, Show Low, AZ and Michael D. Dean, Waukesha, for Kenosha Coalition Against Legalized Gambling.
A nonparty brief was filed by Paul G. Kent of Davis & Kuelthau, S.C., Madison, for Village of Hobart and Brown County.
Before Vergeront, P.J., Deininger and Lundsten, JJ.
¶ 1.
Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc., appeals an order dismissing its complaint against Governor McCallum for failure to join an indispensable party.Dairyland's action seeks to enjoin the Governor from renewing the state's gaming compacts with Indian tribes having reservations or other land in Wisconsin.The circuit court concluded that the tribes are "necessary parties" to the litigation under WIS. STAT. § 803.03(1)(1999-2000),2 and because the tribes cannot be joined as parties, that Dairyland's action should be dismissed pursuant to § 803.03(3).We conclude that the circuit court erred in determining that the tribes are indispensable parties in whose absence the action should not proceed.We therefore reverse the order dismissing the action and remand for further proceedings on Dairyland's complaint.
¶ 2.The following background information is taken, in some instances verbatim, from the Legislative Reference Bureau's Research Bulletin 00-1, The Evolution of Legalized Gambling in Wisconsin(May 2000)(cited in this opinion as "LRB").
¶ 3.The Wisconsin Constitution contained "an absolute . . . prohibition of any gaming activity" for the first one hundred seventeen years of the state's existence.LRBat 1.Beginning in 1965, however, constitutional amendments were ratified permitting, in succession, sweepstakes and other promotional contests, charitable bingo and raffles, and in 1987, pari-mutuel on-track betting on racing and a state lottery.Id.The confluence of the state lottery amendment and federal law relating to gaming activities conducted by Indian tribes has resulted in the present circumstances where "Wisconsin's 11 Indian tribes or bands currently operate 16 major casinos throughout the state, which offer Blackjack, electronic gambling machines, and pull-tabs" under compacts negotiated with the state.Id. at 20.
¶ 4.Because neither the circuit court's ruling nor ours addresses the merits of Dairyland's claim, it is not necessary to discuss in detail the legal underpinnings of Wisconsin's Indian gaming compacts.It is sufficient to note that federal statutes and case law generally allow tribes to conduct any form of gambling on their lands that a given state permits, free, however, of regulation by the state except as may be negotiated in state-tribal compacts.SeeLRBat 20-22;see alsoLac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin,770 F. Supp. 480(W.D. Wis.1991), appeal dismissed,957 F.2d 515(7th Cir.1992);25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-21(2002)(The "Indian Gaming Regulatory Act");80 Op.Att'yGen. 53(1991).
¶ 5.By June 1992, Wisconsin had entered into seven-year gaming compacts with eleven tribes, all of which have been extended for five-year terms expiring in 2003 and 2004.LRBat 23.The compacts all contain renewal clauses which read substantially as follows:
The duration of this Compact shall . . . be automatically extended for terms of five years, unless either party serves written notice of nonrenewal on the other party not less than one hundred eighty days prior to the expiration of the original term of this Compact or any extension thereof.
Dairyland seeks an injunction prohibiting the Governor "from entering into any new, modified, extended or renewed gaming compacts with any Indian tribe purporting to allow casino gambling and requiring [him] to issue timely notice of nonrenewal of each compact."3Dairyland's principal legal theory is that the ratification in 1993 of yet another constitutional amendment4 deprives the Governor of whatever authority may have once existed for permitting the tribes to conduct casinotype gaming in Wisconsin under the compacts.
¶ 6.The Governor moved to dismiss the action for failure to join indispensable parties—"the eleven Indian tribes who are parties to the gaming compacts with the State."5The court granted the Governor's motion and Dairyland appeals.
¶ 7.We emphasize at the outset that the merits of Dairyland's suit for an injunction are not before us in this appeal.We express no view regarding whether, under the present state of the law on gambling in Wisconsin, and under applicable federal statutes and precedents, the Governor should be enjoined from permitting Wisconsin's Indian gaming compacts to be extended beyond their current expiration dates.The only question we decide is whether Dairyland's claim for that relief may be heard and resolved in a Wisconsin court, despite the inability of Dairyland to join the tribes as parties to its lawsuit.
¶ 8.The procedural rule at the center of the issues we address is WIS. STAT. § 803.03, which provides in relevant part as follows:
[1]
¶ 9.As the statute's language and structure suggest, the "indispensable party" inquiry is in two parts.We must first determine if the tribes are "necessary"parties for one of the three reasons set forth in WIS. STAT. § 803.03(1).Dairyland asserts that the tribes meet none of the requirements for being a "necessary"party to the present litigation.If that is true, they cannot be deemed "indispensable" under § 803.03(3), and our inquiry will be at an end.SeeMakah Indian Tribe v. Verity,910 F.2d 555, 559(9th Cir.1990).If we conclude, however, that the circuit correctly declared the tribes necessary parties under § 803.03(1), we must then consider whether the circuit court also correctly determined that, "in equity and good conscience," the action should not proceed in the absence of the tribes, as provided in § 803.03(3).6
[2]
¶ 10.Our first task is to ascertain the proper standard for our review of the circuit court's determination that, because the tribes are parties to the gaming compacts which Dairyland seeks to have nonrenewed, the tribes are necessary parties to this litigation...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
- Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities
- State ex rel. Bahrke v. Door Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment
-
Koschkee v. Evers
...interest. See Wis. Stat. § 803.03(1)(b)1. Although case law does not state a clear test for when one has an "interest" in the context of § 803.03(1)(b)1., we take guidance from
Dairyland GreyhoundPark, Inc. v. McCallum, 2002 WI App 259, ¶ 15, 258 Wis. 2d 210, 655 N.W.2d 474. "The relevant inquiry in Wisconsin is thus not whether a prospective party has a legal or legally protected interest in the subject of an action, but whether the person or entity has an interestor legally protected interest in the subject of an action, but whether the person or entity has an interest of such direct and immediate character that the [prospective party] will either gain or lose by the direct operation of the judgment." Id.(internal quotations and citation omitted).¶ 22 As stated above, the governor will neither gain nor lose by direct operation of the judgment here. His obligation remains the same no matter the outcome—to review a scope statement if presented.... -
Glaeske v. Shaw
...or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his or her claimed interest. Section 803.03(1). Whether a party is a necessary party is a question of law that we decide de novo. See
Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. McCallum, 2002 WI App 259, ¶ 10, 258 Wis. 2d 210, 655 N.W.2d 474, review denied, 2003 WI 1, 258 Wis. 2d 110, 655 N.W.2d 129 (Wis. Nov. 12, 2002) (No. [17] ¶ 45. We conclude that Nate is not a necessary party to this action. Neither circumstance set forth...
-
Wis. Stat. § 803.03 Joinder of Persons Needed For Just and Complete Adjudication
...not, the party cannot be "indispensable" under sub. (3). If the party is found necessary, then, whether "in equity and good conscience" the action should not proceed in the absence of the party must be determined.
Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. McCallum, 2002 WI App 259, 258 Wis. 2d 210, 655 N.W.2d 474, 02-1204. If a person has no right of intervention under 803.09(1), the courts have no duty to join that person sua sponte as a necessary party under sub. (1) (b) 1. The inquiry...