Wisconsin Supreme Court accepts three new cases

Madison, Wisconsin - March 27, 2020

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept three new cases, and the Court acted to deny review in a number of other cases. The case numbers, counties of origin, and the issues presented in granted cases are listed below. More detailed synopses will be released at a later date. More information about pending appellate cases can be found on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Access website. Published Court of Appeals opinions can be found here, and the status of pending Supreme Court cases can be found here.

2018AP71 Mohns Inc. v. BMO Harris Bank National Association
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District II
Circuit Court: Waukesha County, Judge Kathryn W. Foster, affirmed
Long caption:  Mohns Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent v. BMO Harris Bank National Association, Defendant-Appellant- Petitioner

Issues presented:      

  1. Does Wisconsin law prevent a court from entering the ultimate discovery sanction against a defendant—a default judgment or directed verdict—when the discovery conduct had no impact at all on the plaintiff's ability to pursue and prove its case?
  2. Does Wisconsin law prevent a plaintiff from recovering damages for unjust enrichment and breach of contract simultaneously, even in the presence of a discovery sanction of liability?
  3. Does Wisconsin law bar an award of punitive damages based solely on damages claims that sound in contract or quasi-contract, even in the presence of a discovery sanction of liability?

Justices Annette Kingsland Ziegler and Brian K. Hagedorn did not participate.

2018AP2104 State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson
Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review
Court of Appeals: District III
Circuit Court: Dunn County, Judge Rod W. Smeltzer, affirmed
Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent, v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner.

Issues presented:

  1. To prove that a person meets the criteria for commitment under Chapter 980, must the State present expert opinion testimony that the person is "dangerous" as defined under ch. 980?
  2. Should the standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence of dangerousness in a Chapter 980 case be changed to require that a reviewing court conduct a de novo review of whether the evidence satisfies the legal standard of dangerousness?

2018AP858-CR State v. Halverson
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals: District III
Circuit Court: Chippewa County, Judge Steven R. Cray, reversed and cause remanded with directions
Long caption:  State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent v. Brian L. Halverson, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner

Issues presented:      

  1. Does incarceration automatically produce Miranda1 custody under the Wisconsin Constitution?
  2. Did the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s interrogation put him in Miranda custody?

Review denied: The Supreme Court denied review in the following cases. As the state's law-developing court, the Supreme Court exercises its discretion to select for review only those cases that fit certain statutory criteria (see Wis. Stat. § 809.62). Except where indicated, these cases came to the Court via petition for review by the party who lost in the lower court:

2019AP2093-W Walton v. Foster

2018AP1135-CR State v. Kulhanek
2019AP88 Sinkler v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.

2019AP95 Warrington v. City of Prairie du Chien

2018AP2343 State v. Whiterabbit
2018AP82 Jurjens v. Dittmann
2018AP1581 Haynes v. LIRC
2017AP1693 Soria v. Classic Custom Homes of Waunakee, Inc.
2018AP1385-CR State v. Kingcade

2018AP1355-CRNM State v. Walton

2018AP1794 Pflieger v. Bush-Pensy

Eau Claire
2017AP1871 State v. Peterson

2019AP1138-CR State v. Walker

Green Lake
2018AP1937-CR State v. Wickard

2019AP313-CR State v. Smith
2019AP2217-W Jones v. Cir. Ct. for Kenosha Cty.

La Crosse
2019AP1258-FT La Crosse Cty v. J.M.A.

2019AP817 Tadisch v. Birschbach

2018AP922 State v. Emerson

2019AP1395-CR State v. Cotto
2016AP340CRNM State v. Houston
2017AP1719-CRNM State v. Johnson
2018AP2126-CR State v. Katzfey
2018AP2194-CR State v. Haywood
2019AP182-CR State v. King
2019AP193-CR State v. Renfro— Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley dissents
2018AP1987 State v. Olson
2018AP2302 State v. McFarland
2019AP189-CR State v. Linzy
2019AP1464 Newson v. Foster
2019AP2391-W Priest v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee Cty.
2017AP2163-CR State v. Simmons
2018AP977 Marion v. Kemper— Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet did not participate
2018AP1507 State v. Lee
2019AP535-CR State v. Smith
2019AP1623 State v. Z.J.
2018AP1772-CR State v. Gordon
2019AP1564 State v. M.K.

2019AP492-CR State v. Kingsley
2018AP980-CR State v. Swenson

2018AP459-CR State v. Pamonicutt
2018AP1051-CR State v. Reed

2018AP215-CR State v. Holt
2018AP1271 Isherwood v. Portage Cty. Drainage District

2018AP2397 vonGermeten v. Racine Cty.
2019AP2280-W Williams v. DeHaan

2019AP1645 G.K. v. S.C

2018AP2055-CR State v. Robinson

2018AP1588-CR State v. Mitchell
2018AP733 State v. Dennis
2019AP789-CR State v. Grimm

2020AP257-W Puchner v. Circuit Court for Waukesha Co.
2017AP2421 Perfection, LLC v. Cole
2018AP1620-CR State v. Ionescu
2018AP1628 Perfection, LLC v. Cole

2019AP805 Waupaca Cty DH&HS v. J.J.

2018AP1568-CRNM State v. Petersen

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Tom Sheehan
Court Information Officer
(608) 261-6640

Back to current headlines