MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT
JULY 2011
This statistical report presents information about the case filings and dispositions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the month of July 2011 and to date for the term that began on September 1, 2010.
Opinions Issued
by the Court
The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 30 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 2011 Term to Date
Total number of cases resolved by opinion ........................... 30 89
Attorney disciplinary cases.............................................. 2 27
Judicial disciplinary cases................................................ 0 0
Civil cases........................................................................ 21 44
Criminal cases ................................................................. 7 18
Petitions for Review
A total of 66 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 5 petitions for review, of which none were granted. The Supreme Court currently has 262 petitions for review pending.
July 2011 Term to Date
Petitions for Review filed...................................................... 66 738
Civil cases........................................................................ 32 373
Criminal cases.................................................................. 34 365
Petition for Review dispositions............................................ 5 671
Civil cases (petitions granted).......................................... 3 (0) 351 (41)
Criminal cases (petitions granted).................................... 2 (0) 320 (21)
Petitions for Bypass
In July, 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 two petitions for bypass pending.
July 2011 Term to Date
Petitions for Bypass filed...................................................... 0 9
Civil cases........................................................................ 0 7
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 July 2011, the Supreme Court received 2 requests for certification and disposed of none. 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 5 requests for certification pending.
July 2011 Term to Date
Requests for Certification filed............................................. 2 12
Civil cases........................................................................ 0 8
Criminal cases.................................................................. 2 4
Request for Certification dispositions................................... 0 9
Civil cases (requests granted).......................................... 0 (0) 6 (4)
Criminal cases (requests granted).................................... 0 (0) 3 (3)
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 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. 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 47 regulatory matters and 8 writs pending.
July 2011 Term to Date
Filings
Attorney discipline (including reopened cases)..................... 8 76
Judicial discipline................................................................... 0 0
Bar admission........................................................................ 0 0
Petitions
for Supervisory Writ (other writs).......................... 0 50
Other (including Original Actions)........................................ 0 2
Dispositions
by Order
Attorney discipline................................................................ 0 9
Judicial discipline................................................................... 0 0
Bar admission........................................................................ 0 1
Petitions for Supervisory Writ (other writs).......................... 2 55
Other (including Original Actions)........................................ 0 8
DECISIONS BY THE
OPINIONS ISSUED DURING JULY 2011
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES
Docket No. Title Date
|
2010AP1939-D |
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v. Christopher A. Mutschler Per Curiam[1] License revoked. |
07/14/2011 |
|
2011AP48-D |
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v. James M. Schoenecker Per Curiam License suspended. Dissent: Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C. J. |
07/15/2011 |
|
|
|
|
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES
Docket No. Title Date
|
2007AP35 |
David Rasmussen v. General Motors Corporation Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J. |
07/01/2011 |
|
2008AP3170 |
Lake Beulah Management District v. DNR Affirmed in part; reversed in part. Majority Opinion: Crooks, J. Concurrence: Ziegler, J. |
07/06/2011 |
|
2009AP2021 |
Lake Beulah Management District v. Village of East Troy Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Crooks, J. |
07/06/2011 |
|
2009AP2315 |
Joyce Affeldt v. Green Lake County Reversed and remanded. Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J. Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J., joined by Bradley, J. |
07/06/2011 |
|
2009AP1249-CR |
State v. Esteban M. Gonzalez Reversed and remanded. Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C. J. Concurrence: Prosser, J., joined by Gableman, J. Concurrence: Ziegler, J., joined by Roggensack, J. |
07/08/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP2433-FT |
Patrick A. Topolski v. Ellen J. Topolski Modified and affirmed. Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C. J. Dissent: Roggensack, J., joined by Prosser, J. |
07/08/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP1007 |
BNP Paribas v. Olsen’s Mill, Inc. Reversed and remanded. Majority Opinion: Bradley, J. Concurrence: Roggensack, J., joined by Ziegler, J. and Gableman, J. Prosser, J. did not participate. |
07/08/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2008AP2765-CR |
State v. David D. Funk Reversed. Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J. Dissent: Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C. J. and Prosser, J. (joining Part II) Dissent: Prosser, J. |
07/08/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP1558 |
John R. Steffens v. BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois Reversed. Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J., joined by Bradley, J. |
07/08/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP564 |
DeBoer Transportation, Inc. v. Charles Swenson Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. Dissent: Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C. J. |
07/12/2011 |
|
2009AP639 |
Tracy J. McReath v. Timothy J. McReath Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J. |
07/12/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP538 |
Steven T. Kilian v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC Reversed and remanded. Majority Opinion: Gableman, J. Concurrence: Roggensack, J. Ziegler, J. did not participate. |
07/12/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP694-CR |
State v. Rickey R. Denson Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J. Concurrence: Abrahamson, C. J., joined by Bradley, J. |
07/13/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP775 |
E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. County of Oneida Reversed. Majority Opinion: Gableman, J. Dissent: Roggensack, J., joined by Abrahamson, C. J. |
07/13/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP25-CR |
State v. Olu A. Rhodes Reversed and remanded. Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J., joined by Bradley, J. |
07/14/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP2845-W |
Madison Metropolitan School District v. Circuit Court for Dane County Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. Dissent: Crooks, J., joined by Abrahamson, C. J. and Bradley, J. |
07/14/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2008AP2897 |
Link Snacks, Inc. v. Jay E. Link Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded. Majority Opinion: Gableman, J. Concurrence: Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C. J. Concurrence: Ziegler, J., joined by Crooks, J. |
07/14/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2006AP1229/ 2006AP2512 2007AP369 |
Bryan Casper v. American International South Insurance Company Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded. Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. Concurrence/Dissent: Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C. J. |
07/19/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP120 |
Dale Dawson v. Town of Jackson Reversed. Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. Concurrence: Roggensack, J. Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J. |
07/19/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP472 |
State v. David J. Balliette Reversed. Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. Dissent: Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C. J. |
07/19/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP1351-CR |
State v. Gregg B. Kandutsch Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J., joined by Bradley, J. |
07/19/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP1469/ 2009AP1470 |
Covenant Healthcare System, Inc. v. City of Wauwatosa Reversed. Majority Opinion: Gableman, J. Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J. |
07/19/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP191 |
Stupar River LLC v. Town of Linwood Board of Review Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Gableman, J. |
07/22/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009AP1579 |
State v. Edwin Clarence West Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. Dissent: Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C. J. |
07/26/2011 |
|
2010AP1142 |
State v. Glen D. Nordberg Affirmed. Majority Opinion: Prosser, J. Dissent: Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C. J. |
07/26/2011 |
[1] “Per Curiam” means “by the Court.” Opinions issued per curiam are handed down by the Court as a whole.