 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting). The majority opinion states that Mr. Iushewitz mislabeled his papers as a motion in a pending action. He should have, according to the majority, labeled his papers as an original action for a writ of mandamus. The majority opinion tells Mr. Iushewitz that he may continue to assert his rights but he must incur more legal fees to draft new papers and file yet another case in the already overcrowded courts of Milwaukee county. This opinion puts form over substance. Furthermore, it contravenes sec. 781.01, Stats. 1991-92, which provides that "the remedy available by a writ of mandamus . . . may be granted by the final judgment or allowed as a provisional remedy in an action or proceeding. The use of a writ is not necessary . . .." The *713Judicial Council Note (1981) explains that the purpose of this section is to render the use of the writ procedure unnecessary. A more common sense approach to this case would be to treat the motion papers as a request for a writ of mandamus. This court has held that "the labeling of a pleading does not determine the nature of the action, but that it is determined by a consideration of all the allegations of the pleading." Durkin v. Board of Police and Fire Comm., 48 Wis. 2d 112, 118, 180 N.W.2d 898 (1970) (quoting Wesolowski v. Erickson, 5 Wis. 2d 335, 92 N.W.2d 898 (1958)). Because I conclude that the motion papers in this case were sufficient to be a pleading for a writ of mandamus invoking the jurisdiction of the circuit court, I dissent. 
Abrahamson, Day
State Ex Rel. Iushewitz v. Milwaukee County Personnel Review Board
State of Wisconsin, Ex Rel. David M. Iushewitz, Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioner, v. the Milwaukee County Personnel Review Board, Respondent-Appellant
<parties id="b874-3">
    State of Wisconsin, ex rel. David M. Iushewitz, Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioner, v. The Milwaukee County Personnel Review Board, Respondent-Appellant.
   </parties><br><court id="b874-6">
    Supreme Court
   </court><br><docketnumber id="b874-7">
<em>
     No. 91-2171-FT.
    </em>
</docketnumber><otherdate id="A6S">
<em>
     Submitted on briefs March 31, 1993.
    </em>
</otherdate><decisiondate id="Apg">
    Decided
    <em>
     June 9, 1993.
    </em>
</decisiondate><br><citation id="b874-10">
    (Also reported in 500 N.W.2d 634.)
   </citation><br><attorneys id="b875-15">
<span citation-index="1" class="star-pagination" label="707"> 
     *707
     </span>
    For the petitioner-respondent-petitioner there was a brief by
    <em>
     Gerald P. Boyle, Wendy A. Patrickus
    </em>
    and
    <em>
     Gerald P. Boyle, S.C.,
    </em>
    Milwaukee.
   </attorneys><br><attorneys id="b876-2">
<span citation-index="1" class="star-pagination" label="708"> 
     *708
     </span>
    For the respondent-appellant there was a brief by
    <em>
     Timothy R. Schoewe,
    </em>
    Deputy Corporation Counsel, Milwaukee.
   </attorneys>
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court