MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT
MAY 2011
This statistical report presents information about the case filings and dispositions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the month of May 2011 and to date for the term that began on September 1, 2010.
Opinions Issued
by the Court
The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 10 cases in May. Information about these opinions, including the Court’s dispositions and the names of the authoring justices, can be found on the attached table.
May 2011 Term to Date
Total number of cases resolved by opinion ........................... 10 48
Attorney disciplinary cases.............................................. 1 19
Judicial disciplinary cases................................................ 0 0
Civil cases........................................................................ 7 21
Criminal cases ................................................................. 2 8
Petitions for Review
A total of 54 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 May, the Supreme Court disposed of 79 petitions for review, of which 4 petitions were granted. The Supreme Court currently has 179 petitions for review pending.
May 2011 Term to Date
Petitions for Review filed...................................................... 54 592
Civil cases........................................................................ 24 295
Criminal cases.................................................................. 30 297
Petition for Review dispositions............................................ 79 608
Civil cases (petitions granted).......................................... 39 (2) 323 (41)
Criminal cases (petitions granted).................................... 40 (2) 285 (20)
Petitions for Bypass
In May, the Supreme Court received no petitions for bypass and disposed of no petitions 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 no petitions for bypass pending.
May 2011 Term to Date
Petitions for Bypass filed...................................................... 0 7
Civil cases........................................................................ 0 5
Criminal cases.................................................................. 0 2
Petition for Bypass dispositions............................................ 0 11
Civil cases (petitions granted).......................................... 0 (0) 7 (0)
Criminal cases (petitions granted).................................... 0 (0) 4 (1)
Requests for
Certification
During May 2011, the Supreme Court received 2 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 4 requests for certification pending.
May 2011 Term to Date
Requests for Certification filed............................................. 2 8
Civil cases........................................................................ 1 6
Criminal cases.................................................................. 1 2
Request for Certification dispositions................................... 1 6
Civil cases (requests granted).......................................... 1 (1) 4 (3)
Criminal cases (requests granted).................................... 0 (0) 2 (2)
Regulatory
Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions
During the month, 8 matters within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Court (bar admission, lawyer discipline, and judicial discipline) were filed and no cases (disciplinary) were reopened. The Supreme Court also received 6 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 43 regulatory matters and 12 writs pending.
May 2011 Term to Date
Filings
Attorney discipline (including reopened cases)..................... 8 64
Judicial discipline................................................................... 0 0
Bar admission........................................................................ 0 0
Petitions
for Supervisory Writ (other writs).......................... 6 47
Other (including Original Actions)........................................ 0 2
Dispositions
by Order
Attorney discipline................................................................ 1 8
Judicial discipline................................................................... 0 0
Bar admission........................................................................ 0 1
Petitions for Supervisory Writ (other writs).......................... 11 47
Other (including Original Actions)........................................ 0 8
DECISIONS BY THE
OPINIONS ISSUED DURING MAY 2011
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES
Docket No. Title Date
|
2007AP1281-D |
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v. Michael F. Hupy Public Reprimand. Per Curiam[1] Gableman, J. did not participate. Dissent: Roggensack, J. joined by Ziegler, J. |
05/27/2011 |
|
|
|
|
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES
Docket No. Title Date
|
2009AP0806-CR |
State v. Marvin L. Beauchamp Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Crooks, J. Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J. |
05/03/2011 |
|
2009AP1252-CR |
State v. Shantell T. Harbor Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Bradley, J. |
05/10/2011 |
|
2009AP0956-CR |
State v. Donovan M. Burris Reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals. Majority Opinion: Crooks, J. Concurrence: Prosser, J. Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J. |
05/17/2011 |
|
2009AP2973 |
In re the termination of parental rights to Gwenevere T., a person under the age of 18: Tammy W-G. v. Jacob T. Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J. Dissent: Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C. J. |
05/17/2011 |
|
2009AP1714 |
Emjay Investment Company v. Village of Germantown Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J. |
05/17/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2008AP1139 |
State v. Omer Ninham Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J. Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J., joined by Bradley, J. |
05/20/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP0688 |
Susan Foley-Ciccantelli and Dr. Mark J. Ciccantelli v. Bishop’s Grove Condominium Association, Inc. and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company |
05/24/2011 |
|
|
Order of the circuit court reversed and cause remanded. Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C. J. Concurrence: Prosser, J. Concurrence: Roggensack, J., joined by Ziegler, J. and Gableman, J. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP1669 |
Roger H. Fischer, Sr. and Sandra J. Fischer v. Pamela A. Steffen and Wilson Mutual Insurance Co., Kohler Company and Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor |
05/24/2011 |
|
|
Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C. J. Dissent: Bradley, J. Dissent: Prosser, J. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP1422 |
Jessica L. Siebert, by her Guardian ad Litem, D. J. Weis and Lynette A. Siebert, Steve Albrecht, Jr., by his Guardian ad Litem, Thomas W. Kyle, Steven Albrecht, Sr., Kari Sosnowski, by her Guardian ad Litem, Thomas W. Kyle and Cyndi Anderson, Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Wisconsin American Mutual Insurance Company, Interstate Brands Corporation, ACE American Insurance Company and Ryan Friberg Reversed. Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J. Dissent: Crooks, J., joined by Abrahamson, C. J. and Bradley, J. |
05/24/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP2784 |
Mark Klemm and Jeanne Klemm v. American Transmission Company, LLC |
05/26/2011 |
|
|
Reversed. Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C. J. |
|
[1] “Per Curiam” means “by the Court.” Opinions issued per curiam are handed down by the Court as a whole.