Supreme Court accepts 14 new cases

Madison, Wisconsin - December 20, 2004

Madison, Wis. (Dec. 20, 2004) – The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to grant review in 14 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 are hyperlinked, as are the cited state statutes.

03-1307 K. Haferman, et al v. D. Vangor, M.D., et al
Issues: This case involves a 13-year-old child with cerebral palsy. The question before the Supreme Court is: What is the period in which a developmentally disabled minor may commence a medical malpractice suit? Do Wis. Stat. §§ 893.16(1) and 893.56, when considered together, create a time gap in that period? From Sauk County.

03-1444-CR State v. C. Anson
Issues: This case involves a conviction for second-degree sexual assault of a child. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the State has a right during a Harrison/Middleton evidentiary hearing to call the defendant and defendant’s trial counsel to testify. A Harrison/Middleton hearing is held in order to apply the two-part test developed in Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219 (1968), and State v. Middleton, 135 Wis.2d 297, 399 N.W.2d 917 (Ct. App.1986), to determine whether a defendant made an independent decision to testify, or whether s/he felt compelled to testify in order to overcome incriminating statements that the prosecution should not have used. The Court also is expected to decide what Sixth Amendment rights, if any, a defendant has at this hearing, and how much weight the court may assign to intangible factors such as witness credibility and family dynamics that the judge observes. From Walworth County.

03-1806 Metropolitan Ventures v. GEA Associates, et al
Justice Jon P. Wilcox is not participating in this case.
Issues: This case stems from an agreement by Metropolitan Ventures to purchase the German-English Academy (GEA) that fell through. The question before the Court is whether a rule set forth in Nodolf v. Nelson, 103 Wis. 2d 656, 309 N.W.2d 397 (Ct. App. 1981), that requires specificity in financing contingency terms, extends beyond real estate to business sale contracts. From Milwaukee County.

03-1878-CR State v. H. Wagner
Issues: Is custodial interrogation regarding illegal drug use outside the scope of the routine booking questions an exception to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426 (1966)? The Court of Appeals issued a short summary disposition in this case that is not available on the Web. From Milwaukee County.

03-2108 Hoida, Inc. v. M&I Midstate Bank, et al
Issues: This case involves an apartment-construction project in Plover in which the contractor failed to pay a supplier for materials. The question is whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that construction lenders and disbursing agents are immune from subcontractor negligence claims for public policy reasons. From Portage County.

03-2249 J. Ammerman v. P. Hauden
Issues: This case involves a failed real estate transaction on a Normandy Lane (Madison) property. The question before the Court is whether the circuit court erred when it awarded a default judgment against the plaintiff (a partnership) on the grounds that the partnership did not appear by counsel at trial, despite the personal appearance of two of the partnership’s three partners. Other questions are: Did the circuit court properly award defendants damages based upon loss-of-bargain? Were the defendants entitled to pre-judgment interest? From Dane County.

03-2306 State v. T. Bush
Issues: This case involves a man who attempted to sexually assault a nursing home patient in 1988. In 1997, he was committed as a so-called sexual predator. The questions before the Court are whether the principles of Escalona v. Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994) apply to Wis. Stat. Chapter 980 (sexual predator commitment) proceedings, and, if so, whether its applicability is prospective or retroactive. Escalona limits prisoner litigation by barring inmates from filing a succession of appeals stemming from one conviction. A prisoner gets one opportunity to raise all the issues s/he wishes to raise. The Court also is expected to determine if Chapter 980 violates the constitutional right to due process and equal protection because it does not require proof of a recent overt act or a finding of the least restrictive alternative to commitment. From Eau Claire County.

03-2755 J. Marder v. Bd. of Regents of the U.W. System
Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley are not participating in this case.
Issues: This case involves the termination of a tenured communications professor at the UW-Superior. The question before the Court is whether proceedings initiated by a university chancellor for the purpose of terminating the employment of a tenured professor constitute a “contested case” under Wis. Stat. Chapter 227. From Douglas County.

03-2865 The Warehouse II v. State of Wis. Dept. of Transportation
Issues: This case involves a condemnation action by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. The question before the Supreme Court is whether litigation expenses should be awarded to the owner of the condemned property under Wis. Stat. § 32.28(1) (a law that allows fee shifting in condemnation actions) given that the property owner successfully challenged the DOT’s right to take its property on the ground that the DOT failed to negotiate in good faith. From Winnebago County.

03-3353 J. Hilton v. DNR
Issues: This is an appeal of a four-page summary disposition by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals that is not available on the Web. The question for the Court is whether the administrative law judge – an executive branch hearing examiner – used established legal methodology, exercised administrative expertise, and correctly balanced the interests of waterfront landowners against the interests of the public. The Court also will consider if an abatement of boat slip spaces along lakefront property was an unconstitutional taking of property without due process. From Green Lake County.

04-0004 J. Linden, et al v. Cascade Stone Co., et al
Issues: This case involves a claim of faulty workmanship on a home construction project. The Supreme Court will decide what test the lower courts should employ to determine if the main purpose of a “mixed contract” is the sale of a product or the provision of services. The Court also will decide which part of the “mixed contract” the lower courts should consider when a homeowner hires a general contractor for construction of a home and the general contractor then hires subcontractors that provide sub-standard services. Finally, the Court is expected to determine if the “integrated system limitation” of the “other property exception” to the economic loss doctrine applies to bar a negligence claim against a subcontractor who predominantly provided services in the construction of a home. From St. Croix County.

04-0239 Rainbow Country Rentals v. Ameritech Publishing
Issues: This case began when an Oconomowoc business paid for listings that never appeared in the Ameritech Yellow Pages for Oconomowoc, Watertown, and Waukesha. The Court will take a new look at a 1984 case [ Discount Fabric House of Racine, Inc. v. Wisconsin Telephone Co., 117 Wis.2d 587; 345 N.W.2d 417 (1984)] in which the Supreme Court held that a clause in the Yellow Pages contract that shielded the phone company from liability if an advertiser lost business due to a botched advertisement violated public policy. The review will determine whether this case law remains viable given the changes in the telecommunications industry that have spawned competing Yellow Pages, giving businesses options they did not have two decades ago. From Waukesha County.

04-0901 Sheboygan County Dept. of Social Services v. Matthew S.
Issues: This is a termination-of-parental-rights case. The question before the Supreme Court is whether a competency challenge is waived if it is based upon a violation of a mandatory statutory time limit and is not raised in the circuit court. From Sheboygan County.

04-1594-FT Megal Development Corp. v. C. Shadof, et al
Issues: This case involves a judgment against two bankrupt individuals who were ordered evicted from their home. The question before the Supreme Court is whether Wis. Stat. § 806.19(4) requires the satisfaction of a judgment debt discharged in bankruptcy where the debtor’s homestead equity exceeds the allowable homestead exemption and where the debtor failed to seek discharge of the judgment lien in the bankruptcy court. From Waukesha County.

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

Back to headlines archive 2004