WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT

JANUARY 2013

This statistical report presents information about the case filings and dispositions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the month of January 2013 and to date for the term that began on September 1, 2012.

Opinions Issued by the Court

The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 14 cases in January. Information about these opinions, including the Court’s dispositions and the names of the authoring justices, can be found on the attached table.

January 2013 Term to Date

Total number of cases resolved by opinion ........................... 14 27

Attorney disciplinary cases.............................................. 7 20

Judicial disciplinary cases................................................ 0 0

Civil cases........................................................................ 5 5

Criminal cases ................................................................. 2 2

Petitions for Review

A total of 62 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 January, the Supreme Court disposed of 57 petitions for review, of which 4 petitions were granted. The Supreme Court currently has 258 petitions for review pending.

January 2013 Term to Date

Petitions for Review filed...................................................... 62 303

Civil cases........................................................................ 28 129

Criminal cases.................................................................. 34 174

Petition for Review dispositions............................................ 57 332

Civil cases (petitions granted).......................................... 25 (2) 172 (14)

Criminal cases (petitions granted).................................... 32 (2) 160 (12)

Petitions for Bypass

In January, the Supreme Court received 2 petitions for bypass and disposed of 5 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 1 petitions for bypass pending.

January 2013 Term to Date

Petitions for Bypass filed...................................................... 2 9

Civil cases........................................................................ 1 6

Criminal cases.................................................................. 1 3

Petition for Bypass dispositions............................................ 5 14

Civil cases (petitions granted).......................................... 5 (2) 12 (2)

Criminal cases (petitions granted).................................... 0 (0) 2 (0)

Requests for Certification

During January 2013, the Supreme Court received 0 requests for certification and disposed of 1 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 2 requests for certification pending.

January 2013 Term to Date

Requests for Certification filed............................................. 0 4

Civil cases........................................................................ 0 1

Criminal cases.................................................................. 0 3

Request for Certification dispositions................................... 1 7

Civil cases (requests granted).......................................... 0 (0) 5 (3)

Criminal cases (requests granted).................................... 1 (1) 2 (2)

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 and no such cases 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 31 regulatory matters and 11 petitions for supervisory writ pending.

January 2013 Term to Date

Filings

Attorney discipline (including reopened cases)..................... 4 29

Judicial discipline................................................................... 0 0

Bar admission........................................................................ 0 0

Petitions for Supervisory Writ............................................... 6 25

Other (including Original Actions)........................................ 0 0

Dispositions by Order

Attorney discipline................................................................ 1 5

Judicial discipline................................................................... 0 0

Bar admission........................................................................ 0 0

Petitions for Supervisory Writ............................................... 6 24

Other (including Original Actions)........................................ 0 2

DECISIONS BY THE

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

OPINIONS ISSUED DURING January 2013

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES

Docket No. Title Date

2011AP259-D	Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v. Matthew C. Siderits License Suspension Per Curiam[1]	01/04/2013
2011AP1469-D	OLR v. Eva E. Ritter Public Reprimand Per Curiam	01/04/2013
2011AP478-D	OLR v. Benjamin J. Harris License Suspension Per Curiam	01/23/2013
2012AP1947-D	OLR v. Lisa A. Webber Hicks Public Reprimand Per Curiam	01/23/2013
2011AP1626-D	OLR v. Everett E. Wood License Suspension Per Curiam	01/25/2013
2012AP668-D	OLR v. Sherman Ward Hackbarth Public Reprimand Per Curiam	01/25/2013
2011AP1570-D	OLR v. Donald A. Hahnfeld License Revoked Per Curiam	01/30/2013

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

Docket No. Title Date

2011AP914	Estate of Danny L. Hopgood v. Jimmy D. Boyd Court of Appeals decision reversed and remanded. Majority Opinion: Bradley, J.	01/03/2013
2010AP2313	Juneau County Star-Times v. Juneau County Court of Appeals decision affirmed. Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C.J. Concurrence: Roggensack, J. Dissent: Prosser, J. joined by Ziegler, J. and Gableman, J. Dissent: Ziegler, J. joined by Gableman, J	01/08/2013

2010AP2597-CR	State v. Dennis D. Lemoine Court of Appeals decision affirmed. Majority Opinion: Crooks, J. Dissent: Abrahamson, C.J.	01/08/2013
2011AP593	Angelia Jamerson v. Department of Children & Families Court of Appeals decision affirmed. Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C.J. Concurrence: Roggensack, J. joined by Ziegler, J. and Gableman, J.	01/10/2013
2010AP1952	State v. Brian K. Avery Court of Appeals decision reversed. Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J. Concurrence: Prosser, J. Dissent: Bradley, J. joined Abrahamson, C.J.	01/30/2013
2011AP813-CR 2011AP814	State v. Juan G. Gracia Court of Appeals decision affirmed. Majority Opinion: Crooks, J. Dissent: Abrahamson, C.J., joined by Bradley, J. and Prosser, J. Dissent: Prosser, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J. and Bradley, J.	01/31/2013

---

[1] “Per Curiam” means “by the Court.” Opinions issued per curiam are handed down by the Court as a whole.