Supreme Court accepts six new cases

Madison, Wisconsin - October 13, 2006

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept six new cases. The Court also acted to deny review in a number of cases. The case numbers, issues, and counties of origin are listed below. Court of Appeals opinions/certification memos that are available online for the newly accepted cases are hyperlinked.

2005AP1507 State v. Schweda
This case involves a waste treatment company that allegedly was illegally discharging sludge and wastewater. The company requested a jury trial, but was not given one. The Court of Appeals certified this appeal to the Supreme Court, which is expected to determine whether, in an action involving violation of waste disposal regulations, the defendant has a constitutional right to a trial by jury. From Fond du Lac County

2003AP429-CR State v. Townsend
This case involves a man who was brought to Wisconsin from Illinois to face armed robbery charges. The man wants the charges dropped because the State of Illinois allegedly violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), which establishes procedures that require cooperation between the sending state and the receiving state in cases involving prisoners who are charged with a crime in one state while incarcerated in a different state. The Court of Appeals found that "any violation that did occur was due to the total disarray of the Illinois prison system" and concluded that dropping the Wisconsin charge was not an appropriate remedy. The Supreme Court will decide whether the law requires that the charges against Townsend be dropped if there was a violation of the IAD. From Milwaukee County

2005AP1730 Avery v. Diedrich
This case involves a couple who asked their insurance agent to increase the insurance coverage on their property. He declined, after concluding the property value was too low to require additional insurance. Later, there was a fire on the property and the couple did not have sufficient insurance to cover their replacement costs. They sued the agent, claiming that he had been negligent in failing to increase their coverage. The lower courts disagreed on whether the agent may be held liable. The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether an insurance agent who has agreed to procure insurance coverage for a client on an ongoing basis has a duty to procure an increase in coverage requested by the client.  From Fond du Lac County

2005AP2778-CR State v. Post
This case involves a man who was convicted of fifth-offense drunk driving. His conviction was reversed when the Court of Appeals concluded that the police stop had been illegal. The Supreme Court will decide whether the man's driving, which the Court of Appeals described as "slight deviations within one lane of travel," was sufficient to give police cause to stop and search him. From Sauk County

2005AP2030 Leitinger v. Van Buren
This case involves a man who was injured in a construction accident. A dispute arose about payment of his medical expenses. The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether defendants in a personal injury case are permitted to introduce evidence of the amount of medical expenses actually paid, as opposed to the amount of expenses billed, in order to prove the reasonable value of the services rendered. From Milwaukee County

2005AP2686& Milwaukee Co. v. Williams and Hegney
2005AP2687
This case involves two cabbies who were fined $250 each for violating a Milwaukee County ordinance by picking up passengers at Mitchell Field without an airport permit. The cab drivers maintain that the ordinance violates several Wisconsin statutes, including the antitrust law. They lost in both lower courts. The Supreme Court is expected to determine whether the Milwaukee ordinance that requires cabbies to hold special permits to pick up fares at Mitchell Field is an unnecessarily anticompetitive regulation.  From Milwaukee County

Review denied: The Supreme Court denied review in the following cases. Supreme Court review is a matter of judicial discretion, not of right, and will be granted only when special and important reasons are presented. As the state’s law-developing court, the Supreme Court exercises its discretion to consider for review only those cases that fit certain criteria, but these criteria neither control nor fully measure the court’s discretion (see Wis. Stat. (rule) § 809.62). Except where indicated, these cases came to the Court via petition for review by the party who lost in the lower court.

Petitions for writs:

• 2006AP2109-OA Re: John Doe Complaint: Ira B. Robins v. Wis. DOJ

• 2006AP2208-W State ex rel. James Matthew Dean v. Chris J. Honish

• 2006AP2074-W State ex rel. Gerald L. Weinhold v. COA District II

Petitions to bypass the Court of Appeals:

• 2006AP1053-CR  State v. John A.Casteel
  Justice N. Patrick Crooks did not participate 

• 2006AP126   Emily S. Beaver v. Cynthia Zellner-Ehlers
  Justice N. Patrick Crooks did not participate
• 2006AP145   Albert H. Beaver v. County of Door
  Justice N. Patrick Crooks did not participate 

• 2005AP1403-CR &  State v. Carlos A. Abadia 
  2005AP1404-CR 

Petitions for review:

• 2005AP658-CR State v. Nicole Schutte-
  Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissent

Barron County

• 2005AP3048-CR State v. Andrew N. Bauerfield

• 2004AP1041-CR State v. Blaine S. Grayson
• 2005AP1557 Christopher L. Raymaker v. Am. Fam. Ins.-
  Justice David Prosser Jr. dissents
• 2005AP2310-CR State v. James J. Larson

• 2005AP2575 Robert R. Druschel v. Peter F. Cloeren

• 2003AP2183-CR  State v. Justin M. Schwert-
  Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson dissents
• 2005AP1674  Hunt Club Condominiums v. Mac-Gray Services 
• 2006AP176-CRNM  State v. Alvernice O. Sellers  
• 2006AP326 State ex rel. Donald J. Gaulin v. David Schwarz
• 2006AP348 Dane Co. Human Svc. v. Robert A.
• 2006AP460-CR State v. Tekeith R. Tate

Eau Claire County

• 2005AP2853  Dean Abbott v. Howard Marker  

• 2005AP1928-W State ex rel. Robert. J. Jacobson v. Forest County

• 2005AP2570 Cottonseed v. Brian Coulthard

• 2005AP2864-CR State v. Armond R. Pride

• 2005AP1213 Mary A. Kowalski v. Pinewood Supper Club
• 2005AP2604 MSI Preferred Services v. Clements Agency
• 2006AP1385  Marriage of:  O'Grady 
• 2006AP1795-W State ex rel. Michael Shaun O'Grady  v. Marathon Co. Cir. Ct.

• 2005AP1234 State v. Jeffrey M. Pedersen

• 2005AP1481 Elite Marble Co. v. LIRC 

• 2004AP2235 State v. Kendric Jermaine Winters
• 2004AP2823  State v. Vernon H. Walker  
• 2005AP671 State v. Brian K. Schessler
• 2005AP1015 State v. Lloyd Edwin Sellers
• 2005AP1449 State v. John E. Isom
• 2005AP1484-CR State v. Demetrius J. Grayson
• 2005AP1573-CR  State v. Richard P. Gilliland
• 2005AP2012-CR State v. Charles Knight
• 2005AP2238-CR State v. Malikah Mumtaz-
  Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissent
• 2005AP2309-CR State v. Marvin Thomas
• 2005AP2425-CR State v. Luis Y. Arroyo
• 2005AP2628-CR State v. Albert L. Black
• 2005AP2733-CR State v. Shaun C. Williams
• 2005AP2804-CR  State v. Jutovus A. Farrington 
• 2005AP2981-CR State v. Alex A. Feliciano
• 2005AP3152-CR State v. Lavell D. Love
• 2006AP182-CR State v. Jerome E. Buie
• 2006AP477-CNRM  State v. Timothy B. Owens
• 2006AP1805-W State ex rel. Javier Bautista Sanchez v. Pamela Wallace

• 2005AP2136-W State ex rel. Michael V. Petty v. Quala Champagne
• 2005AP2189 Amy B. Reardon v. David O. Braeger
• 2005AP2535  Laana Raab v. Miguel A. Jimenez 

Pierce County

• 2005AP2673 City of Prescott v.Gary Holmgren-
  Justice Patience Drake Roggensack dissents

• 2005AP2056-CR State v. Marcus T. Rogers Jr.-
  Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissents
• 2005AP2578-CR  State v. Ricky A. Myhre
• 2005AP2987-W  State ex rel. Michael L. McGee v. Byran Bartow

• 2006AP1825-W State ex rel. Algen M. Lamon v. Richard Schneiter

St Croix County

• 2005AP1299 Rsidue, LLC v. Michael R. Michaud

Sheboygan County

• 2005AP2487 Marriage of: Paulhe-
  Justice Patience Drake Roggensack dissents

Walworth County

• 2005AP3174-CR  State v. Gary D. Kluczynski  

• 2005AP916-CR State v. Scott A. Ludtke  
• 2005AP1754 Gdnsp of Nicholas C.L.: Nicholas C.L. v. Julie R.L.
  Justice David Prosser Jr. dissents
• 2005AP2243 Fox River Condominium Assoc. v. Townhomes of River Place
  Justice Patience Drake Roggensack dissents

Winnebago County

• 2005AP2159 Trisha M. Liethen v. Stephen W. Allen-
  Justice David Prosser Jr. dissents

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

Back to headlines archive 2006