Wisconsin Supreme Court accepts five new cases

Madison, Wisconsin - August 28, 2020

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept five 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.

2018AP2220 State v. Vice
Supreme Court case type:
 Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District III
Circuit Court:  Washburn County, Judge John P. Anderson, affirmed
Long caption:  State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner v. Adam W. Vice, Defendant-Respondent

Issue presented:
Neither Vice's personal characteristics nor the circumstances surrounding his post-polygraph interview led the Court of Appeals to conclude that his confession to sexually assaulting a four-year-old girl was involuntary. Rather, a combination of two factors regarding police's use of Vice's polygraph results tipped the scales in Vice's favor: (1) police repeatedly referenced the results, and (2) police did not inform Vice that the results would be inadmissible in court.

Did the Court of Appeals err by giving undue weight to these factors in assessing the voluntariness of Vice's confession? Stated otherwise, under the totality of the circumstances, was Vice's confession voluntary?

2018AP2142 State v. Matthews
Supreme Court case type:
 Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District I
Circuit Court:  Milwaukee County, Judge Maxine A. White, affirmed
Long caption:  In re the commitment of Tavodess Matthews: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Respondent v. Tavodess Matthews, Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner

Issue presented:
Is an adjourned probable cause hearing a "preliminary contested matter" that terminates litigants' opportunity to request judicial substitution?

2018AP2383 United America v. WisDOT
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District III
Circuit Court:  Lincoln County, Judge Jay R. Tlusty, affirmed in part; reversed in part
Long caption:  United America, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Defendant-Appellant

Issue presented:
The issue presented is the interpretation and scope of the statutory language in Wis. Stats. § 32.18, "any damages to said lands." 

2019AP2033 Portage County v. E.R.R.
Supreme Court case type:
 Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District IV
Circuit Court:  Portage County, Judge Thomas B. Eagon (dismissed)
Long caption:  In the matter of the mental commitment of E. R. R.: Portage County, Petitioner-Respondent v. E.R.R., Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner

Issues presented:

  1. Whether an appeal from a Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(am) commitment order may properly be dismissed as moot.
  2. Whether the County met its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. R. was currently dangerous as required by Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(am).

2019AP130 Southport Commons, LLC v. DOT
Supreme Court case type:
 Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District IV
Circuit Court:  Kenosha County, Judge David M. Bastianelli, affirmed
Long caption:  Southport Commons, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Defendant-Respondent

Issue presented:
What is the correct interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 88.87(2)(c), which provides in relevant part: "If …[DOT] constructs and maintains a highway … not in accordance with par. (a), any property owner damaged by the highway … may, within 3 years after the alleged damage occurred, file a claim with the appropriate governmental agency."

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:

17AP2474 Roberts v. Roberts
18AP2086-CR State v. Wojciechowski

16AP1888-CRNM State v. Mahonie
18AP1757-CR State v. Murray
18AP2364-CR State v. Bruce
19AP85 State v. Petroski
19AP1324-1325 Brown County DHS v. H.P.

19AP1065 Adams v. Teynor

19AP307-CR State v. Wilson-Justice Jill J. Karofsky did not participate.

18AP1269-1269-CR State v. Douglas

Fond du Lac
19AP720-721-CRNM State v. Umentum

18AP981 Gunderson v. Franks

18AP1689-CR State v. Young
18AP1853-1854-CR State v. Johnson
19AP836-CR State v. Body

19AP186 Rader v. Acuity

18AP1292-CR State v. Brown
18AP1850-CRNM State v. Bell
18AP1985 State v. Williams
18AP2223-CR State v. Alexander
18AP2305-CR State v. Bratchett
19AP11-CR State v. Harmon
19AP33-34-CR State v. Nelson
19AP121-W Smith v. Hepp
19AP267-CR State v. Shipman-Allen
19AP769-CR State v. Miller
19AP778 Central United Methodist Church v. City of Milwaukee
19AP786 State v. Carson
19AP1796-CR State v. Norton
20AP161 State v. J.W.

17AP2139-CR State v. Silva
18AP1623-CR State v. Wittmann

18AP1063-CR State v. Ozier
18AP2096-CR State v. Jackson
19AP16-CR State v. Bryant

19AP909 Hallett v. Department of Children & Families

19AP1182 Thompson v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Company

18AP1964-CR State v. Packer

18AP2372 State v. Hvizdak
20AP1011-W Kurtz v. Borowski

St. Croix
18AP1614-CRNM State v. Bruflodt
19AP243-CR State v. Krumm

18AP1729-CRNM State v. Neubauer

18AP1804 Deutsche Bank v. Dye

18AP2353-CR State v. Lipscomb
19Ap480-CR State v. Groce

18AP2280 State v. McCann

18AP2464-CRNM State v. Kopelke
19AP705-CR State v. McGrath

Tom Sheehan
Court Information Officer
(608) 261-6640

Back to current headlines