MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT
JUNE 2008
This statistical report presents information about the case filings and dispositions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the month of June 2008 and to date for the term that began on September 1, 2007.
Opinions Issued
by the Court
The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 24 cases in June. Information about these opinions, including the Court’s dispositions and the names of the authoring justices, can be found on the attached table.
June
2008 Term to Date
Total number of cases resolved by opinion .............................. 24 73
Attorney/Judicial disciplinary cases..................................... 2 26
Civil cases......................................................................... 12 30
Criminal cases .................................................................. 10 17
Petitions for Review
A total of 57 petitions for review were filed during the month. A petition for review asks the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is discretionary, meaning that review is granted in selected cases only. In June, the Supreme Court disposed of 76 petitions for review, of which 8 petitions were granted. The Supreme Court currently has 171 petitions for review pending.
June
2008 Term to Date
Petitions for Review filed.......................................................... 57 683
Civil cases......................................................................... 38 398
Criminal cases................................................................... 19 285
Petition for Review dispositions................................................ 76 690
Civil cases (petitions granted)............................................. 32 (4) 386 (40)
Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................... 44 (4) 304 (22)
Petitions for
Bypass
The Supreme Court received 1 petition for bypass and disposed of no petitions for bypass this month. In a petition for bypass, a party requests that the Supreme Court take jurisdiction of an appeal or other proceeding pending in the Court of Appeals. A matter appropriate for bypass is usually one which meets one or more of the criteria for review by the Supreme Court and one the Supreme Court concludes it will ultimately choose to consider regardless of how the Court of Appeals might decide the issues. A petition for bypass may also be granted where there is a clear need to hasten the ultimate appellate decision. The Supreme Court currently has 3 petitions for bypass pending.
June
2008 Term to Date
Petitions for Bypass filed.......................................................... 1 10
Civil cases......................................................................... 1 7
Criminal cases................................................................... 0 3
Petition for Bypass dispositions................................................ 0 9
Civil cases (petitions granted)............................................. 0 (0) 6 (0)
Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................... 0 (0) 3 (0)
Requests for
Certification
During June 2008, the Supreme Court received 4 requests for certification and disposed of no requests for certification. In a request for certification, the Court of Appeals asks the Supreme Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction before the Court of Appeals hears the matter. A request for certification is decided on the basis of the same criteria as a petition to bypass. The Supreme Court currently has 6 requests for certification pending.
June
2008 Term to Date
Requests for Certification filed.................................................. 4 13
Civil cases......................................................................... 3 7
Criminal cases................................................................... 1 6
Request for Certification dispositions........................................ 0 18
Civil cases (requests granted)............................................. 0 (0) 9 (3)
Criminal cases (requests granted)....................................... 0 (0) 9 (6)
Regulatory
Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions
During the month, a total of 4 matters within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Court (bar admission, lawyer discipline, and judicial discipline) were filed (including 1 reopened case). The Supreme Court also received 5 petitions for supervisory writ, which ask the Supreme Court to order the Court of Appeals or a circuit court to take a certain action in a case. No original actions were filed. An original action is a petition asking the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction over a particular matter. When an opinion is issued in these cases, the disposition is included in “Opinions Issued by the Court” above; otherwise, the case is disposed of by order and is included in the totals below. The Supreme Court currently has 44 regulatory matters and 14 petitions for supervisory writ pending.
June
2008 Term to Date
Filings
Attorney/Judicial disciplinary and bar admission........................ 4 63
Petitions for Supervisory Writ.................................................. 5 46
Other (including Original Actions)............................................. 0 2
Dispositions
by Order
Attorney/Judicial disciplinary and bar admission........................ 3 16
Petitions for Supervisory Writ.................................................. 5 34
Other (including Original Actions)............................................. 1 14
DECISIONS BY THE
OPINIONS ISSUED DURING JUNE 2008
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES
Docket No. Title Date
|
2007AP001004-D |
OLR v. Jones 4 Month Suspension Per Curiam[1] |
06/03/2008 |
|
2006AP000578-D |
OLR v. Reinstatement Granted Upon Conditions Per Curiam |
06/20/2008 |
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES
Docket No. Title Date
|
2004AP001104-CR |
State v. Keyes Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Bradley, J. |
06/03/2008 |
|
2004AP001105-CR |
State v. Keyes Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Bradley, J. |
06/03/2008 |
|
2005AP002796 |
Richards v. Badger Mutual Insurance Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Dissent:
Abrahamson, C.J., joined by Bradley, J. and |
06/03/2008 |
|
2006AP001114-CR |
State v. Popenhagen Reversed and Remanded Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C.J. Concurrence: Prosser, J. Concurrence/Dissent: Ziegler, J. Dissent: Roggensack, J. |
06/04/2008 |
|
2006AP000396 |
Donohoo v. Action Court of Appeals Reversed Majority Opinion: Bradley, J. Dissent: Roggensack, J., joined by Prosser, J. and Ziegler, J. |
06/05/2008 |
|
2005AP002175-CR |
State v. Duchow Court of Appeals Reversed Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. |
06/10/2008 |
|
2005AP002311-CR |
State v. Plude Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Concurrence:
Concurrence: Ziegler, J. |
06/10/2008 |
|
2006AP00672-CR |
State v. LaCount Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Crooks, J. Concurrence:
Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J. and Concurrence:
Roggensack, J., joined by |
06/10/2008 |
|
2006AP001847-CR |
State v. Jorgensen Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J. Concurrence:
Abrahamson, C.J., joined by Bradley, J. and |
06/13/2008 |
|
2006AP000424 |
Diana G. Sanders v. Estate of David R. Sanders Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded Majority Opinion: Crooks, J. Prosser, J. and Roggensack, J. did not participate. |
06/18/2008 |
|
2006AP001153 |
Acuity v. Kishan Bagadia Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. |
06/18/2008 |
|
2006AP001974 |
Acuity v. Kishan Bagadia Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. |
06/18/2008 |
|
2006AP000064-CR |
State v. David G. Straszkowski Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C.J. Concurrence:
|
06/19/2008 |
|
2007AP000230-W |
Adrian T. Hipp v. Circuit Court for Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Bradley, J. Concurrence:
Abrahamson, C.J. did not participate. |
06/20/2008 |
|
2005AP001473 |
WIREdata, Inc. v. Court of Appeals Reversed in part, Affirmed in part, and Remanded Majority Opinion: Crooks, J. Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J. |
06/25/2008 |
|
2005AP00174 |
WIREdata, Inc. v. Court of Appeals Reversed in part, Affirmed in part, and Remanded Majority Opinion: Crooks, J. Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J. |
06/25/2008 |
|
2005AP00175 |
WIREdata, Inc. v. Court of Appeals Reversed in part, Affirmed in part, and Remanded Majority Opinion: Crooks, J. Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J. |
06/25/2008 |
|
2006AP002292 |
C. Coakley Relocation Systems v. City of Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J. Concurrence: Roggensack, J. |
06/25/2008 |
|
2006AP000964 |
Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded Majority Opinion: Crooks, J. Dissent:
Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J. and |
06/26/2008 |
|
2006AP001379-CR |
State v. Bruce Duncan MacArthur Circuit court Affirmed and Cause Remanded Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J. Concurrence: Bradley, J. Prosser, J. did not participate. |
06/26/2008 |
|
2006AP001954-CR |
State v. Keith A. Davis Circuit court Affirmed Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J. Dissent: Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J. |
06/26/2008 |
|
2006AP000813 |
Ramachandra Rao, M.D. v. WMA Securities, Inc. Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C.J. Concurrence: Ziegler, J. Dissent: Prosser, J., joined by Roggensack, J. |
06/27/2008 |
[1] “Per Curiam” means “by the Court.” Opinions issued per curiam are handed down by the Court as a whole.