Wis. 2d at 270-71. 15 Petta, 278 Wis. 2d 251, ¶ 29. 16 Schulte, 176 Wis. 2d at 637; Petta, 278 Wis. 2d 251, ¶ 29. 17 Schulte, 176 Wis. 2d at 637; Petta, 278 Wis. 2d 251, ¶ 29. When the settling parties do not ask the circuit court to determine whether the injured party has been made whole, thus preventing the circuit court from making a finding on the issue, the subrogated insurer's right of subrogation is not extinguished. See Mut. Serv. Cas. Co. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 140 Wis. 2d 555, 563-64, 410 N.W.2d 582 (1987) (stating that the made whole doctrine is not "applicable in an action brought by a subrogated, insurer against the tortfeasor or the tortfeasor's insurer where the subrogated insurer's insured has previously settled with the. tortfeasor."); Schulte, 176 Wis. 2d 635-36 (<HOLDING>). 18 Garrity, 77 Wis. 2d at 542. 19 See
holding that once a trial court has set a date for a summaryjudgment hearing the court must allow the nonmoving party an opportunity to be heard holding that a hearing on a motion to dismiss an appeal is not required if the parties are given an opportunity to respond on the record holding that the rule stated in mutual service does not apply when the settling parties request a rimes hearing the subrogated insurer has an opportunity to participate in the hearing and the circuit court determines that the injured party has not been made whole holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing holding that the state courts factfinding procedure was adequate even though it did not hold an evidentiary hearing because  hearing as used in  2254d does not require a trialtype hearing at which live testimony is presented and the accused has the opportunity to crossexamine witnesses