Wisconsin Court System
Wisconsin Court System
Click on Expand Navigation to expand the navigation expand navigationexpand navigation Click on Expand Navigation to expand the navigation
Left end navigation image  |  |  |  |  |  | Right end navigation image

Headlines archive

News> Headlines> Archive> 2001> Release

Supreme Court accepts eight new cases

Madison, Wisconsin - December 19, 2001

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to grant review in eight new cases. The case numbers, issues (provided by the Office of the Clerk of Supreme Court), and counties of origin are listed below. To read the full record, go to the Supreme Court Clerk's Office, Suite 215, Tenney Building, 110 E. Main St., Madison. The Court of Appeals opinions in these cases, if they exist, can be found on the court system's Web site, www.courts.state.wi.us. The statutes that are referenced can be found on the state Legislature's Web site, www.legis.state.wi.us.

98-2795 J.O. Norquist v. C. Zeuske
Note: Justice David Prosser Jr. is not participating in this case.
Issues: Does the freeze on assessments of agricultural land created by Wis. Stat. § 70.32(2r) violate the Uniformity Clause of the Wisconsin Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 1? From Dane County.

98-3107 State v. R.G. Sorenson
Issues: Does the doctrine of issue preclusion prohibit the respondent in a Chapter 980 (sexual predator) proceeding from presenting evidence alleging innocence of the underlying sexual offense? If it does, are there any circumstances under which the respondent in a Chapter 980 proceeding can challenge a judgment of conviction in the underlying sexual offense action? From Juneau County.

99-2306 ABKA Ltd. v. Wis. Dept. of Natural Resources
Note: Justice Jon P. Wilcox is not participating in this case.
Issues: Does a person who files a permit application thereby waive all objections to the permitting agency's jurisdiction - even where the applicant and the agency have expressly agreed that a permit proceeding is the best way to resolve a jurisdictional dispute and the applicant could challenge he agency's jurisdiction in that proceeding? Was the DNR obliged to deny, as inconsistent with the public trust doctrine, an application for a permit authorizing the maintenance of boatslips by the owners of "dockominiums," where under the condominium-style agreement each unit owner is assigned the right to use a specific slip "subject to the rights of the members of the public and the State of Wisconsin under Wisconsin law and subject to permits issued by the State of Wisconsin"? Has the Legislature given the DNR authority in Wis. Stat. § 30.12 to require the owner of a permitted marina to apply for a new permit solely because of a change in the form of ownership of the property to condominium? From Ozaukee County.

00-0467 State v. T.L. Rachel
Note: Justice David Prosser Jr. is not participating in this case.
Issues: Does Wis. Stat. § 980 (1999-2000), as amended by 1999 Wis. Act 9, violate the due process, double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses of the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions? Is the proper framework for the analysis of a double jeopardy claim in Wisconsin set forth in State v. Carpenter , 197 Wis. 2d 252, 541 N.W.2d 105 (1995), or in a U.S. Supreme Court case, Hudson v. United States , 522 U.S. 93 (1997)? From Kenosha County.

00-3252 R. Mallo v. Wis. Dept. of Revenue
Note: Justices Jon Wilcox and David Prosser Jr. are not participating in this case.
Issues: Did the Department of Revenue exceed its authority in promulgating a rule providing for the immediate transition to agricultural use value assessment for agricultural land when the 1995 legislation, Wis. Stat. § 70.32(2r), authorizing the change in assessment valuation set forth a gradual transition? From Dane County

01-0197 A. Linzmeyer v. D.J. Forcey
Issues: Does application of the balancing test under the open records law allow disclosure of an investigative report that resulted in no arrest? From Winnebago County.

01-0463-CR State v. L.A. Williams

01-0464-CR State v. A.C. Mathews
Issues: These cases have been consolidated because they raise the same issue: whether the conduct of police officers who stopped a motor vehicle for speeding would have communciated to a reasonable person that the driver was free to decline permission to search the vehicle and to leave. Both cases are from Eau Claire County.

 

For more information contact:
Amanda Todd
Court Information Officer
(608) 264-6256

Back to top

Back to headlines archive 2000

Site search

Click on search to submit your search  | Click on advanced search for more search options

Navigation

Left bottom navigation cap  |  |  | Right bottom navigation cap
home web site help site index rss