News

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 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.

2019AP1479 City of Waukesha v. City of Waukesha Board of Review
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District II
Circuit Court:  Waukesha County, Judge Michael O. Bohren, reversed
Long caption:  State of Wisconsin ex rel. City of Waukesha, Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioner v. City of Waukesha Board of Review, Respondent-Appellant, Salem United Methodist Church, Interested Party-Respondent

Issue presented:
May a municipality seek certiorari review of a decision of its Board of Review?

2020AP878-CR State v. Nimmer
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District I
Circuit Court:  Milwaukee County, Judge Glenn H. Yamahiro, reversed
Long caption:  State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner v. Avan Rondell Nimmer, Defendant-Appellant

Issue presented:
Does law enforcement, within a minute of receiving a ShotSpotter report of shots fired at a residential address, have reasonable suspicion to stop the only person outside the address, where the person reacts to the police by grabbing at his waistband, angling one side of his body away from police, and speeding his pace away from the officers?

2019AP629 Jama v. Gonzalez
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District IV
Circuit Court:  Dane County, Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn, reversed
Long caption:  Jama I. Jama, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Jason C. Gonzalez and Wisconsin Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners

Issues presented:      

1. Is there an exception to the actual innocence rule that relieves criminal malpractice plaintiffs of establishing their innocence as to convictions on which they do not claim malpractice? 
2. If criminal malpractice plaintiffs need not establish their innocence as to all convictions, must they nevertheless establish their innocence as to all convictions transactionally related to the convictions on which they claim malpractice? 
3. If criminal malpractice plaintiffs need not, as a matter of law, establish their innocence as to any convictions, is the circuit court nevertheless allowed to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether public policy considerations preclude imposing liability on the defendant, and did the circuit court correctly determine that public policy bars the claims at issue here? 

Justice Jill J. Karofsky did not participate.

2019AP1618 Nudo Holdings, LLC v. Bd. of Review for the City of Kenosha
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District II
Circuit Court:  Kenosha County, Judge Anthony G. Milisauskas, affirmed
Long caption:  State of Wisconsin ex rel. Nudo Holdings, LLC, Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner v. Board of Review for the City of Kenosha, Respondent-Respondent

Issues presented:      

1. Was the City of Kenosha Board of Review (the "Board") decision in affirming the property tax assessment for Nudo's land ("Nudo Farms"), classifying it as residential land instead of agricultural land, according to the law?
2. Was the Board's decision supported by sufficient evidence?

2019AP1671 Cree Inc. v. LIRC
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District II
Circuit Court:  Racine County, Judge Michael J. Piontek, reversed
Long caption:  Cree, Inc., Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, Respondent-Co-Appellant, Derrick Palmer, Respondent-Appellant.

Issues presented:      

1. Whether the Labor and Industry Review Commission ("LIRC") and the Court of Appeals erred in their interpretation and application of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act's ("WFEA") substantial relationship test when they found that there was not a substantial relationship between Derrick Palmer's ("Palmer") multiple convictions for assaulting and battering women and the employment he sought at Cree, through which he would have regular, unsupervised interaction with women.
2. Whether LIRC and the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the uncontested testimony of Cree's fact and expert witnesses concerning the nature of the position to which Palmer applied and the substantial relationship between his numerous domestic violence convictions and the potential for violence against those with whom he would interact if employed at Cree.

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:

Contact:
Tom Sheehan
Court Information Officer
(608) 261-6640