Supreme Court accepts four new cases

Madison, Wisconsin - November 16, 2005

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept four new cases. The case numbers, issues, 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. Court of Appeals opinions and certifications are hyperlinked.

03AP2802-CR State v. David Roberson
This case began with the arrest of a Milwaukee man who allegedly was selling cocaine. The police officers tracked David Roberson down in his mother’s home. The legality of their entry into the home to search for the suspect is central to this case. The question before the Supreme Court is whether Roberson’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the testimony of the police officer who identified the defendant. From Milwaukee County.

04AP1793 S. Drinkwater v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co, et al
This case involves a man who works in Iowa, lives in Wisconsin, and was badly injured in an automobile accident in Wisconsin. The case centers on questions about the health-insurance policy issued by his Iowa employer. The Supreme Court is expected to decide if the choice-of-law and subrogation provisions in the health insurance policy should be given effect in a Wisconsin tort case without regard to Wisconsin’s “made whole” doctrine. From Grant County.

04AP1877 Richards v. First Union Securities
This case involves an investor who filed a claim against a securities company for investment losses. The man won a default judgment against the company but the Court of Appeals declared that judgment void. The questions for the Supreme Court center on the evidence that a defendant must produce in order to vacate a default judgment for insufficient service of process on a corporation under Wis. Stat. § 801.11(5)(a), especially with respect to whether an individual is a “managing agent” of the corporation? And, who bears the burden of persuasion that service was inadequate and how does that burden interact with the rule that a circuit court judgment is void if service was not proper? From Waukesha County.

04AP2582/05AP545 Jackson County v. DNR, et al
(Consolidated w/2005AP545)
This case involves a question of whether a county may, after assuming ownership of property on which taxes have not been paid, return the property to the original owner without that owner’s consent. The property at issue in this case is a landfill that presents significant costs and potential liabilities to whoever owns it. From Dane County.

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

Back to headlines archive 2005