Supreme Court accepts six new cases

Madison, Wisconsin - January 25, 2006

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept six 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.

2004AP2004 R. Borst, et al v. Allstate Insurance Co
This case began with an automobile accident that sparked a dispute between one of the drivers and his insurance carrier, Allstate. The two agreed to settle their differences in arbitration, but the man objected to Allstate’s choice of arbitrator, alleging that the arbitrator was biased.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether, under Wis. Stat. § 788.10(1)(b) (2003 – 04), “evident partiality” due to a relationship between an arbitrator and a party may be avoided by full disclosure at the outset and declaration of impartiality. The Court also is expected to determine if there is a presumption of impartiality among arbitrators, and whether that may be sidestepped only by explicit agreement of all parties. Finally, the Court will clarify whether the nature and extent of discovery during the arbitration process is governed by contract, the arbitrators’ inherent authority, or a combination of the two. From Kenosha County.

2004AP2065 J. Hanson v. American Family Mutual ins. Co., et al
This case began with a car accident. The woman who was injured sought medical care and ultimately underwent surgery on her spine.

2004AP2318 First American Title Ins. Co. v. D. Dahlmann
This case began with the sale of a hotel property known as the Madison Inn on Frances Street in Madison. After the sale, the buyer learned that the hotel parking garage encroached on City property, and that the City would seek an annual fee as a result. The buyer’s dispute with the title company over insurance coverage for the fee sparked this case.

The question before the Supreme Court is whether a landowner’s unintentional encroachment onto adjacent property results in a defect in, or unmarketability of, the landowner’s title. The Court also is expected to determine if, in situations where the landowner’s title insurance company deletes certain exceptions (including the standard “survey exception”) from its title insurance policy, there is coverage for damages to the landowner’s title. From Dane County.

2004AP2533 M. Gallego, et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Ins. et al
This is a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart, alleging that the company sold artificially colored, farm-raised salmon and misled consumers into believing was it naturally pink wild salmon.

The question before the Supreme Court is whether the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection exceeded its rule-making authority in developing regulations specific to food misbranding. From Dane County.

2005AP323 Wisconsin Mall Properties v. LLC Younkers, Inc.
This case began when the City of Green Bay moved to acquire the downtown Younkers building as part of a redevelopment effort. A dispute over the condemnation process led to this lawsuit.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide if a condemnation action against real property and the sale/leaseback lease extinguishes the parties’ contractual rights and obligations where there is an express agreement that contractual rights would survive condemnation. The Court also will determine if, in the event that these rights do survive condemnation, the injured party is limited in its recourse against the government entity condemning the property and lease. From Brown County.

2005AP508 Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. v. City of Madison
The case focuses on how the value of a billboard is calculated. The case arises from a dispute between Adams Outdoor Advertising and the City of Madison that began when the City placed new limits on the number of billboards that could be displayed. The limits edged out several Adams signs, and Adams sought compensation.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide several questions related to the valuation of outdoor advertising, including whether, in the absence of a recent sale or sales of reasonably comparable properties, the law requires a taxing authority to use the “cost less depreciation” method instead of the “income” method when valuing an outdoor advertising sign for personal property tax purposes. From Dane County.

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

Back to headlines archive 2006