Wisconsin Supreme Court accepts four new cases

Madison, Wisconsin - November 6, 2020

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept seven 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. 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.

2019AP1918 Monroe v. Chase
Supreme Court case type:  Certification
Court of Appeals:  District I
Circuit Court:  Dane County, Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn
Long caption:  Cheyne Monroe, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Chad Chase, Defendant-Respondent
Issue presented:  Whether the malicious prosecution defendant’s unilateral voluntary dismissal of a prior proceeding can ever satisfy the third element of a malicious prosecution claim—that the prior proceeding terminated in the malicious prosecution plaintiff’s favor.

2016AP308-CR State v. Prado
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review and Cross-Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District IV
Circuit Court:  Dane County, Judge David T. Flanagan III, reversed
Long caption:  State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner v. Dawn M. Prado, Defendant-Respondent-Cross-Petitioner
Issues presented: 
The State’s petition for review raises these issues: 
  1. Was the blood draw justified under Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which established that for the category of cases involving suspected drunk drivers who are unconscious and taken to the hospital before a breath test can be administered, a warrantless blood draw is almost always justified by exigent circumstances?
  2. Was the blood draw from Prado justified by her consent under the implied consent law?
  3. Was suppression of the blood test results improper because the police officer who ordered the blood draw relied in good faith on the unconscious driver provision in Wisconsin’s implied consent law?

Dawn Prado’s petition for review raises these issues:
  1. Whether the “good faith” exception to the warrant requirement should be extended to an officer’s reliance on law which is not “well established.”
  2. Whether the “good faith” exception to the warrant requirement should be extended to officers who are not “well trained” in the matter they supposed exercised “good faith” in.
  3. Whether a circuit court’s determination that an officer did not act in good faith is a question of fact, law, or both, and what standard of review ought to apply to such determinations, is an issue of first impression requiring a decision from this court.

2019AP894 Eau Claire County Dep’t of Human Servs. v. S.E.
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District II
Circuit Court:  Eau Claire County, Judge Emily M. Long, affirmed
Long caption:  In re the termination of parental rights to T. L. E.-C., a person under the age of 18: Eau Claire County Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent-RESPONDENT v. S. E., Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner
Issues presented:
1. Whether as a matter of statutory construction the new, shorter timeframe begins with the initial CHIPS order, even if it predates the change in the statute and thus does not include notice of the shorter timeframe. 
2. Whether starting the shorter timeframe with a CHIPS order that predates the statutory change violates a parent’s due process rights.

2020AP1634-CQ DNC v. Bostelmann 
Supreme Court case type:  Certified Question
Court of Appeals:  U.S. 7th Circuit
Long caption:  Democratic National Committee, Democratic Party of Wisconsin, Sylvia Gear, Chrystal Edwards and Jill Swenson, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Marge Bostelmann, Julie M. Glancey, Dean Knudson, Mark L. Thomsen and Robert Spindell, Jr., Defendants, Republican Party of Wisconsin, Republican National Committee and Wisconsin State Legislature, Intervening Defendants-Appellants.

Issue presented:  Whether, under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(2m), the State Legislature has the authority to represent the State of Wisconsin’s interest in the validity of state laws. (A decision in this case was issued by Oct. 6).
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:

19AP354 City of Portage v. O’Grady

18AP2004-CR State v. Manneh
19AP13-CR State v. Washington
19AP668-CR State v. Anderson
20AP1133-W Maday v. Carr
20AP1488-OA Hawkins v .WEC
20AP1629-OA Wisconsin Legislature v. DNC

19AP1785-CR State v. Agnew

20AP831-W Schultz v. Evers

20AP1098-W Laguna v. Tegels

19AP2312-W Buchanan v. Circuit Court for Jackson County

18AP2334-CR State v. Ahrens
19AP2229-FT Jefferson County v. M.P.

19AP263 State v. Gross
20AP438 Juneau County DHS v. C. C.

La Crosse
18AP1230-CRNM State v. Cleaves
19AP103 Neberman v. Artisan and Truckers Casualty Insurance Company

16AP1410 Bach v. Life Navigators
17AP2084-CR State v. As-Saffat
18AP476-CRNM State v. Brooks
18AP970 State v. Duke
18AP971 State v. Johnson
18AP2192-CR State v. Lass - Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack did not participate.
18AP2374 State v. Winston
19AP277-CR State v. Euell
19AP458 Kohner, Mann & Kailas v. Hutchinson - Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack did not participate.
19AP512 State v. Leiser
19AP658 State v. K.L.G.
19AP730 State v. James - Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet did not participate.
19AP832-CR State v. Gray
19AP1079-W Johnson v. Pollard
19AP1349-CR State v. Jackson
19AP1797-CRNM State v. Terrell

19AP1134-CR State v. Daniel
19AP2346-2348 Racine County Human Services Dept. v. S.M.F.

18AP2148 Hynek v. Hynek

19AP1454-CR State v. Myers

20AP1026-W Kraft v. Wallace

20AP1223-W Zittlow v. Tegels

18AP2391-CR State v. Bohmann

19AP2061-CR State v. Rotolo

Tom Sheehan
Court Information Officer
(608) 261-6640

Back to current headlines