(concurring on motion for reconsideration). I agree with the majority that the juvenile waiver order does not constitute a final order under sec. 808.03(1), Stats., but is an order ap-pealable by permission of the court of appeals under sec. 808.03(2), Stats. Because this court continues to adhere to the view expressed in In Interest of D.H., 76 Wis.2d 286, 294, 251 N.W.2d 196 (1977) (per curiam opinion p. 105c), that the juvenile should have immediate, speedy and efficient review of a juvenile waiver order, I conclude, as I did in State v. Jenich, 94 Wis.2d 74, 288 N.W.2d 114 (1980), rehearing May 19, 1980 (Shirley S. Abrahamson, J. concurring), that the court of appeals should grant leave to appeal as a matter of course to all petitions for leave to appeal juvenile waiver *105forders to protect the juvenile from substantial and irreparable injury. In the event of a frivolous appeal from an order, the court of appeals should summarily affirm the juvenile waiver order.
I do not agree with the majority’s disposition of the writ. If we can speak in terms of “customary disposition of a case like this,” I would say that the customary disposition would be to deny the petition for a writ of prohibition and to extend the stay of criminal proceedings in the circuit court for Green Lake county, which this court granted on October 8, 1979, for ten days from the date of our mandate to give petitioner opportunity to file a petition for leave to appeal and to seek a further stay. See sec. 808.07 and Rules 809.12, 809.82, Stats.
I do not understand why the court remands the case to the “juvenile court.” The judge entered an order waiving juvenile jurisdiction and pursuant to sec. 48.18 (6), Stats., the instant case is presently pending before the Green Lake county circuit court as an adult criminal matter; this court has stayed further adult criminal proceedings. I do not know what the “juvenile court” can or should do on remand.
Although I do not doubt this court’s power to dismiss the writ of prohibition and to grant A.E. additional time to file a petition for leave to appeal with the court of appeals, I think the court is putting too heavy an emphasis and value on form instead of on substance. We should not dismiss proceedings on procedural, technical grounds. I believe this court should, as it has in other recent proceedings, remand or transfer the matter to the court of appeals. The court of appeals should be directed to treat A.E.’s petition for a writ of prohibition as a petition for leave to appeal.
A.E. has filed three sets of papers with the clerk of the supreme court (who serves as clerk to both the supreme court and the court of appeals) and has expended $75 in filing fees. The court now forces A.E. to pay *105gadditional legal fees to counsel to redraft the same papers for a fourth time and to pay another $25 filing fee upon filing the petition with the clerk. There are presently three separate files on A.E. being maintained in the clerk’s office. A fourth file containing the same material is not needed to enable the court of appeals to determine if it will grant leave to appeal. If the parties wish to file additional material to aid the court of appeals they can request the court of appeals for permission to do so. If the court of appeals requires additional information it may order the parties to supply it. For those who care to know more about the convoluted and dubious procedure followed by the courts in the instant case, the tiresome details are set forth in the margin.*
*105hThe court has unfortunately put an additional delay in the proceedings by requiring the filing of a petition for leave to appeal. Time, which is of the essence in the *106instant case, is ticking away. A.E. will reach the age of eighteen on July 13, 1980.
A.E., alleging that use of the appeal route to the court of appeals would not provide the “speedy and efficient review” required by In Interest of D.H., 76 Wis.2d 286, 251 N.W. 196 (1977), sought review of the juvenile waiver order (which had been entered on September 12, 1979) by petitioning the court of appeals for a writ of prohibition. A.E.’s petition for a writ of prohibition was filed on September 17, 1979, and A.E. paid the required $25.00 filing fee.
Although no “notice of appeal” was filed in the Green Lake county circuit court, a copy of the petition for the writ of prohibition was filed in the Green Lake county circuit court, and the petition gave substantially the same information as required in a notice of appeal. Rule 809.10(1), Stats. The petition for the writ of prohibition also met the requirements of a petition seeking leave to appeal under Rule 809.50, Stats. Thus the court of appeals could have treated A.E.’s petition for a writ of prohibition as a petition for leave to appeal, properly filed within the time limits provided by Rule 809.50, Stats., or as a notice of appeal properly filed in both the circuit court and court of appeals (Rule 809.10(1), Stats.), but the court of appeals chose not to do so.
On September 25, 1979, the court of appeals dismissed A.E.’s petition for a writ of prohibition stating that the proper manner of challenging the juvenile waiver order was first by appeal to *105hthe court of appeals under sec. 48.47, Stats., and then by petition for the writ of prohibition to the supreme court thereafter. The order of the court of appeals did not state whether the appeal of the juvenile waiver order was an appeal of right or an appeal by leave of court. One may assume since the ten-day period for filing a petition to appeal had expired by the date of the court of appeals’ order of dismissal, the court of appeals viewed the waiver order appealable as of right.
When the court of appeals dismissed A.E.’s petition for a supervisory writ, A.E. apparently had the choice of (1) filing a notice of appeal and seeking a stay of the criminal trial; (2) seeking review of the dismissal by a petition to review in this court pursuant to sec. 808.10, Stats, and Rule 809.62, Stats., or (3) seeking a supervisory writ from this court pursuant to Rules 809.51 and 809.71, Stats. Martineau and Malmgren, Wisconsin Appellate Practice sec. 3801 (1978).
A.E. chose not to file a notice of appeal with the court of appeals (which A.E. had asserted would not provide speedy and efficient review) or a petition to review with this court. A.E. chose the supervisory writ route. On October 3, 1979, A.E. filed two petitions in this court for supervisory writs. One petition was a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this court to direct the court of appeals to review the juvenile waiver order. The second petition was a petition for a writ of prohibition asking this court to direct the Green Lake county circuit court not to proceed with a criminal trial and asking this court to review the juvenile waiver order. A.E. paid $50.00 in filing fees, $25.00 for each petition. Each petition refers to the other petition, and each petition asks for relief in the alternative, either prohibition or mandamus. The caption of each petition is different: Mandamus names the court of appeals as respondent; prohibition names the circuit court as respondent. However, both the circuit court and the court of appeals were notified of the filing of both petitions in this court. In both the petition for a writ of prohibition and the petition for a writ of mandamus, the real parties in interest (A.E. and the state), their counsel, and the issues presented are the same. A.E.’s petitions for the writs were filed in this court within the thirty-day period set forth in sec. 808.10 for filing petitions to review in this court and could be treated *106by this court as a petition to review. Cf. McEwen v. Price County, 90 Wis.2d 266, 270, 279 N.W.2d 469 (1979).
On October 8, 1979, in an unpublished order which gave no explanation for this court’s action, this court denied A.E.’s petition for a writ of mandamus which had been directed to the court of appeals. This court ordered all criminal proceedings in the circuit court arising out of the juvenile waiver order stayed and ordered a response to A.E.’s petition for the writ of prohibition. This court was then left with A.E.’s petition for a writ of prohibition directed to the circuit court not to proceed with an adult criminal trial and asking this court to review the merits of the juvenile waiver order.