Maxine A. White

Authored the majority. A first-of-its-kind read of Wisconsin's damages statute. White stuck closely to what the words said and applied them straight, with the result that the plaintiff's recovery nearly doubled—from roughly $7M to $13.4M. The opinion is District I's strongest example of disciplined statutory work this term: read the words, apply the words, accept the result.

A pipefitter named Gerald Lorbiecki worked at Pabst Brewing for years and was exposed to asbestos. He died of cancer in 2018. A jury said Pabst broke the safe-place law and awarded his family about $7 million. The big legal question was how to figure out the cap on punishment damages. White read the law the way the legislature wrote it, doubled the total, and the family's recovery grew to about $13.4 million. She got the law right. The Wisconsin Supreme Court took the case to look at the same question.

Filed the dissent. A property-tax exemption applied to property "used exclusively" for hospital purposes. The majority refused to extend it to a building still under construction. White would have stretched the statute on the theory that the legislature meant to cover construction even though it didn't say so—a results-driven read that puts judges in the business of guessing legislative intent rather than enforcing legislative text.

Children's Hospital was building a new tower in Wauwatosa. By tax-day 2020, the building was only about 14 percent done. The hospital wanted a property-tax break that the law gives to buildings "used exclusively" for hospital purposes. The majority said an unfinished building does not count. White disagreed. She thought the building should still get the break because lawmakers probably meant to cover construction. The problem: the law does not say that. White's dissent went past the words, and she ended up arguing for a result the statute does not support.