MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT
JULY 2008
This statistical report presents information about the case filings and dispositions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the month of July 2008 and to date for the term that began on September 1, 2007.
Opinions Issued
by the Court
The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 35 cases in July. Information about these opinions, including the Court’s dispositions and the names of the authoring justices, can be found on the attached table.
July
2008 Term to Date
Total number of cases resolved by opinion .............................. 35 108
Attorney/Judicial disciplinary cases..................................... 8 34
Civil cases......................................................................... 19 49
Criminal cases .................................................................. 8 25
Petitions for Review
A total of 72 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 July, the Supreme Court disposed of 60 petitions for review, of which 5 petitions were granted. The Supreme Court currently has 184 petitions for review pending.
July
2008 Term to Date
Petitions for Review filed.......................................................... 72 755
Civil cases......................................................................... 38 436
Criminal cases................................................................... 34 319
Petition for Review dispositions................................................ 60 750
Civil cases (petitions granted)............................................. 29 (1) 415 (41)
Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................... 31 (4) 335 (26)
Petitions for
Bypass
The Supreme Court received 2 petitions for bypass and disposed of 2 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.
July
2008 Term to Date
Petitions for Bypass filed.......................................................... 2 12
Civil cases......................................................................... 1 8
Criminal cases................................................................... 1 4
Petition for Bypass dispositions................................................ 2 11
Civil cases (petitions granted)............................................. 2 (0) 8 (0)
Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................... 0 (0) 3 (0)
Requests for
Certification
During July 2008, the Supreme Court received no requests for certification and disposed of 2 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 4 requests for certification pending.
July
2008 Term to Date
Requests for Certification filed.................................................. 0 13
Civil cases......................................................................... 0 7
Criminal cases................................................................... 0 6
Request for Certification dispositions........................................ 2 20
Civil cases (requests granted)............................................. 1 (1) 10 (4)
Criminal cases (requests granted)....................................... 1 (0) 10 (6)
Regulatory
Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions
During the month, a total of 6 matters within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Court (bar admission, lawyer discipline, and judicial discipline) were filed (including 2 reopened cases). The Supreme Court also received 4 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 38 regulatory matters and 8 petitions for supervisory writ pending.
July
2008 Term to Date
Filings
Attorney/Judicial disciplinary and bar admission........................ 6 69
Petitions for Supervisory Writ.................................................. 4 50
Other (including Original Actions)............................................. 0 2
Dispositions
by Order
Attorney/Judicial disciplinary and bar admission........................ 4 20
Petitions for Supervisory Writ.................................................. 10 44
Other (including Original Actions)............................................. 0 14
DECISIONS BY THE
OPINIONS ISSUED DURING JULY 2008
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES
Docket No. Title Date
|
2007AP002270-D |
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v. Terrence J. Woods 90 Day Suspension Per Curiam[1] |
07/01/2008 |
|
2007AP000208-D |
OLR v. R. L. McNeely 60 Day Suspension Per Curiam |
07/15/2008 |
|
2006AP002629-D |
OLR v. Kristin J. Gernetzke Reinstatement Granted Upon Conditions Per Curiam |
07/17/2008 |
|
2008AP000181-D |
OLR v. Maureen B. Fitzgerald 60 Day Suspension Per Curiam |
07/17/2008 |
|
2007AP000588-D |
OLR v. Joan M. Boyd 5 Month Suspension Per Curiam |
07/18/2008 |
|
2006AP002430-D |
OLR v. Carlos A.
Gamiño 18 Month
Suspension Per Curiam |
07/30/2008 |
|
2008AP000553-D |
OLR v. Michael F. Swensen License Revoked Per Curiam |
07/31/2008 |
|
2008AP000570-D |
OLR v. Eric L.
Crandall 30 Day Suspension Per Curiam |
07/31/2008 |
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES
Docket No. Title Date
|
2005AP002855 |
Court of Appeals Affirmed and Remanded Majority Opinion: Crooks, J. Dissent:
Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J. and |
07/01/2008 |
|
2006AP000405 |
Gregory A. Liebovich v. Minnesota Insurance Company Court of Appeals Affirmed and, as modified, Cause Remanded Majority Opinion:
Ziegler, J. did not participate. |
07/01/2008 |
|
2006AP000450 |
Town of Court of Appeals Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J. Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J. |
07/01/2008 |
|
2006AP003092 |
Michael J. Watton v. Nannette H. Hegerty Court of Appeals Reversed Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J., joined by Bradley, J. |
07/01/2008 |
|
2006AP001566 |
Estate of Dale Otto v. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Inc. Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C.J. Dissent: Roggensack, J., joined by Prosser, J. and Ziegler, J. |
07/03/2008 |
|
2006AP001859 |
Walgreen Co. v. City of Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded Majority Opinion:
Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J. |
07/08/2008 |
|
2005AP002935 |
Taneceia Larry v. Derrick L. Harris Court of Appeals Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Cause Remanded Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J. Concurrence/Dissent: |
07/09/2008 |
|
2006AP000974-CR |
State v. Ramon Lopez Arias Circuit Court Reversed and Cause Remanded Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Dissent:
Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J., and |
07/09/2008 |
|
2006AP002060-CR |
State v. Dwight M. Sanders Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C.J. Concurrence: Prosser, J., joined by Roggensack, J. and Ziegler, J. Concurrence:
|
07/09/2008 |
|
2006AP002554 |
Town of Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded Majority Opinion:
Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J. Dissent: Roggensack, J., joined by Prosser, J. and Ziegler, J. |
07/09/2008 |
|
2006AP002744-CR |
State v. Alexander Caleb Grunke Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J. Dissent:
Bradley, J. and |
07/09/2008 |
|
2006AP002745-CR |
State v. Nicholas Owen Grunke Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J. Dissent:
Bradley, J. and |
07/09/2008 |
|
2006AP002746-CR |
State v. Dustin Blake Radke Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J. Dissent:
Bradley, J. and |
07/09/2008 |
|
2005AP001287 |
Robert Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc. Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded Majority Opinion:
Concurrence: Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J. Concurrence: Roggensack, J., joined by Ziegler, J. |
07/10/2008 |
|
2006AP000939 |
Estate of James B. Sustache v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co. Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. Concurrence: Bradley, J. |
07/10/2008 |
|
2004AP003239 |
Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Menasha Corporation Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J. Concurrence: Crooks, J., joined by Prosser, J. and Roggensack, J. Dissent:
Abrahamson, C.J., joined by Bradley, J. and Dissent:
Bradley, J., joined by |
07/11/2008 |
|
2005AP001026 |
Barbara Sands v. The Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded Majority Opinion:
Dissent: Prosser, J. |
07/11/2008 |
|
2006AP000662 |
State v. Beaver Dam Area Development Corporation Circuit Court Reversed and Cause Remanded Majority Opinion: Bradley, J. Dissent: Prosser, J., joined by Roggensack, J. Ziegler, J. did not participate. |
07/11/2008 |
|
2005AP001527 |
Berner Cheese Corp. v. Lyle A. Krug Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Concurrence:
Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J. and |
07/15/2008 |
|
2006AP000102-CR |
State v. Nathaniel L. Sumner Court of Appeals Reversed Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. |
07/15/2008 |
|
2006AP001094 |
Jeannie Hefty v. Daniel R. Strickhouser Court of Appeals Affirmed and Cause Remanded Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. Dissent: Ziegler, J. |
07/15/2008 |
|
2006AP001956 |
Jeannie Hefty v. Daniel R. Strickhouser Court of Appeals Affirmed and Cause Remanded Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. Dissent: Ziegler, J. |
07/15/2008 |
|
2006AP002254-CR |
State v. Carmen L. Doss Court of Appeals Reversed Majority Opinion:
|
07/15/2008 |
|
2006AP002753-CR |
State v. Jonathan J. Hubbard Court of Appeals Reversed Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. Concurrence:
Abrahamson, C.J., joined by Bradley, J. and Concurrence:
|
07/15/2008 |
|
2006AP000291 |
Kenneth W. Hornback v. Archdiocese of Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion:
Prosser, J. did not participate. |
07/16/2008 |
|
2006AP000818 |
J. G. v. Deborah S. Wangard Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. Dissent:
Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J. and Dissent: |
07/16/2008 |
|
2006AP001521 |
Hans Rechsteiner v. Hazelden Court of Appeals Affirmed Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. |
07/16/2008 |
[1] “Per Curiam” means “by the Court.” Opinions issued per curiam are handed down by the Court as a whole.