MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2010
This statistical report presents information about the case filings and dispositions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the month of September 2010 and to date for the term that began on September 1, 2010.
Opinions Issued
by the Court
The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 7 cases in September. Information about these opinions, including the Court’s dispositions and the names of the authoring justices, can be found on the attached table.
September
2010 Term to Date
Total number of cases resolved by opinion .............................. 7 7
Attorney disciplinary cases................................................. 7 7
Judicial disciplinary cases................................................... 0 0
Civil cases......................................................................... 0 0
Criminal cases .................................................................. 0 0
Petitions for Review
A total of 81 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 September, the Supreme Court disposed of 81 petitions for review, of which 18 petitions were granted. The Supreme Court currently has 194 petitions for review pending.
September
2010 Term to Date
Petitions for Review filed.......................................................... 81 81
Civil cases......................................................................... 50 50
Criminal cases................................................................... 31 31
Petition for Review dispositions................................................ 81 81
Civil cases (petitions granted)............................................. 48 (13) 48 (13)
Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................... 33 (5) 33 (5)
Petitions for
Bypass
In September, the Supreme Court received 4 petitions for bypass and disposed of no petition for bypass. 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 8 petitions for bypass pending.
September
2010 Term to Date
Petitions for Bypass filed.......................................................... 4 4
Civil cases......................................................................... 3 3
Criminal cases................................................................... 1 1
Petition for Bypass dispositions................................................ 0 0
Civil cases (petitions granted)............................................. 0 (0) 0 (0)
Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................... 0 (0) 0 (0)
Requests for
Certification
During September 2010, the Supreme Court received no requests for certification and disposed of 1 request 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 1 request for certification pending.
September
2010 Term to Date
Requests for Certification filed.................................................. 0 0
Civil cases......................................................................... 0 0
Criminal cases................................................................... 0 0
Request for Certification dispositions........................................ 1 1
Civil cases (requests granted)............................................. 1 (0) 1 (0)
Criminal cases (requests granted)....................................... 0 (0) 0 (0)
Regulatory
Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions
During the month, 2 matters within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Court (bar admission, lawyer discipline, and judicial discipline) were filed and 5 cases (disciplinary) were reopened. The Supreme Court also received no 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. Two 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 23 regulatory matters and 5 petitions for supervisory writ pending.
September
2010 Term to Date
Filings
Attorney discipline (including reopened cases).......................... 7 7
Judicial discipline..................................................................... 0 0
Bar admission.......................................................................... 0 0
Petitions for Supervisory Writ (other writs)............................... 3 3
Other (including Original Actions)............................................. 2 2
Dispositions
by Order
Attorney discipline................................................................... 0 0
Judicial discipline..................................................................... 0 0
Bar admission.......................................................................... 0 0
Petitions for Supervisory Writ.................................................. 10 10
Other (including Original Actions)............................................. 0 0
DECISIONS BY THE
OPINIONS ISSUED DURING SEPTEMBER 2010
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES
Docket No. Title Date
|
2008AP002766-D |
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v. Ryan D. Lister 60 Day suspension Per Curiam[1] Dissent: Bradley, J. joined by Abrahamson, C.J. |
09/01/2010 |
|
2009AP000916-D |
OLR v. Sandra K. Colpien 6 Month suspension Per Curiam |
09/03/2010 |
|
2010AP001118-D |
OLR v. Stephen M. Compton 2 Year suspension Per Curiam |
09/08/2010 |
|
2008AP000085-D |
OLR v. Brian P. Mularski License Revoked Per Curiam |
09/10/2010 |
|
2008AP001847-D |
OLR v. John H. Peiss 1 Year suspension Per Curiam |
09/17/2010 |
|
2005AP001978-D |
OLR v. Gary George License Reinstated Per Curiam Prosser, J. did not participate. |
09/30/2010 |
|
2007AP002763-D |
OLR v. Barry LaSieur Public Reprimand Per Curiam Dissent: Bradley, J. |
09/30/2010 |
[1] “Per Curiam” means “by the Court.” Opinions issued per curiam are handed down by the Court as a whole.