News

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept four 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.

2019AP1728 & 2019AP2063 Casanova v. Polsky

Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review
Court of Appeals: District II
Circuit Court: Racine County, Judges Michael J. Piontek and David W. Paulson, reversed.
Long caption: In re:  The Atrium of Racine, Inc., d/b/a The Atrium and Bay Pointe:
Marilyn Casanova, member of Creditor Committee, Audrey J. Fox, member of Creditor Committee, Dr. Melvin Miritz, member of Creditor Committee, Linda Miritz, member of Creditor Committee, Edward and Louise Langleib Trust, member of Creditor Committee, Carleton Musson, member of Creditor Committee, Wilma Milovancevic, member of Creditor Committee, Helen Taylor, member of Creditor Committee, Louis P. Teicheret Trust, member of Creditor Committee, Reverend Frederick Marks, member of Creditor Committee, Jewel Marks, member of Creditor Committee, Patricia Meier , member of Creditor Committee, Patricia Teernstra, member of Creditor Committee, Andrew Mikaelian, member of Creditor Committee, Marcella Mikaelian, member of Creditor Committee, Josephine Brooks, member of Creditor Committee, Evelyn Odell, member of Creditor Committee, Laurence Freer, member of Creditor Committee, Dorothy Kohl, member of Creditor Committee, Karen Boerger, member of Creditor Committee, Jacqueline Williamson, member of Creditor Committee, Judy Glowinski, member of Creditor Committee, Anne Tredwell, member of Creditor Committee, Marilyn Baham , member of Creditor Committee, Elsie Gotzman, member of Creditor Committee, Lucille Ciaramita, member of Creditor Committee, Joanne Ramaker, member of Creditor Committee, Johanna Sander, member of Creditor Committee, Thomas Eser, member of Creditor Committee, Henryetta Eser, member of Creditor Committee, Grace Nelson, member of Creditor Committee, Jane Odders, member of Creditor Committee, David Nelson, member of Creditor Committee, Ray Katt (deceased), member of Creditor Committee, Louise Katt, member of Creditor Committee, Ethel Hader, member of Creditor Committee, Warren Larsen, member of Creditor Committee, Ellen Larsen, member of Creditor Committee, Frances Scott, member of Creditor Committee, Susan Prouty, member of Creditor Committee, Robert Rainey, member of Creditor Committee, Patricia Rainey, member of Creditor Committee, Helen Eckheart, member of Creditor Committee, Wilma Wiser, member of Creditor Committee, Earl Christianson, member of Creditor Committee and Marian Bloch, member of Creditor Committee, Appellants, v. Michael S. Polsky, Esq., Receiver and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., Respondents-Petitioners.

Issues presented:

Polsky, et al.:

1. May an undocumented, unrecorded lien—created by judicial fiat—have priority over the Trustee's properly perfected first mortgage and security interest?
2. Did the Court of Appeals (and, by extension, this Court) lack jurisdiction over these appeals by virtue of the failure to appeal from a final order dated April 23, 2018?

Casanova, et al.:

1. Did the Bondholders agree that their right to re-payment is subject to the Residents first receiving reimbursement of their entrance fees?
2. Do the Appellate Courts have jurisdiction over the present case?

2021AP419 State v. X.S.

Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review
Court of Appeals: District I
Circuit Court: Milwaukee County, Judge Brittany C. Grayson, reversed and remanded
Long caption: In the interest of X.S., a person under the age of 18: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Appellant, v. X. S., Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner.
Issues presented:

1. Did the court of appeals erroneously exercise its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration less than 24 hours after it was filed in a written order that contained no explication?
2. Did the juvenile court err when it permitted X.S. to introduce an explanation of the underlying offense that mitigated, but did not negate probable cause for, the offense(s) alleged in the delinquency petition?

2020AP485 WI Property Tax Consultants v. WI Dept. of Revenue

Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review
Court of Appeals: District II
Circuit Court: Ozaukee County, Judge Sandy A. Williams, affirmed
Long caption: Wisconsin Property Tax Consultants, Inc. and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Defendant-Respondent

Issue presented: In concluding that the Tax Appeals Commission had jurisdiction to entertain WPTC and WMC's declaratory judgment action asserting the Department of Revenue failed to comply with the rule promulgation requirements of Chapter 227 when it denied the exemption enacting in Wis. Stat. § 70.111(27) to all manufacturers, did the Circuit Court improperly rely on the primary jurisdiction doctrine to dismiss WPTC and WMC's declaratory judgment action under Wis. Stat. § 227.40?

2019AP2095 Great Lakes Excavating v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review
Court of Appeals: District I
Circuit Court: Milwaukee County, Judge William S. Pocan, affirmed
Long caption: Great Lakes Excavating, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Defendant-Respondent, AMCON Design and Construction Co., LLC, Riverworks Development Corporation and John H. Burkemper, Defendants, Riverworks City Center, LLC, Intervenor-Respondent

Issue presented:

1. Does Wis. Stat. § 779.05(1), relating to waivers of construction liens, prohibit the consideration of extrinsic evidence to give effect to the written language used by parties?
2. Can equitable estoppel be asserted to counter the argument that a lien waiver intended to be a partial lien waiver must be regarded as a full lien waiver pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 779.05(1)?
3. What must a party do to preserve an appeal when asserting equitable estoppel to oppose a defense?

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