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.

2020AP1696 Saint John’s Communities, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee

Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review
Court of Appeals: District I
Circuit Court: Milwaukee County, Judge Jeffrey A. Conen, reversed and remanded
Long caption: Saint John’s Communities, Inc., 

Issues presented:
In order to pursue an action under Wis. Stat. § 74.35, must a tax payer pay the disputed real estate taxes before filing a claim against the municipality?

2020AP1213-CR State v. Corey T. Rector

Supreme Court case type:  Certification
Court of Appeals: District II
Circuit Court: Kenosha County, Judge Jason A. Rossell
Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant, v. Corey T. Rector, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Respondent
Issues presented: Whether the plain meaning of “separate occasions” in the sex-offender-registration statute means that the two convictions must have occurred at different times in two separate proceedings so that the qualifying convictions occurred sometime before a defendant is convicted in the current case. Stated otherwise, can the qualifying convictions occur simultaneously, as they did in this case, and as Wittrock and Hopkins held?

2020AP2003 Wisconsin Justice Initiative v. WEC

Supreme Court case type: Certification
Court of Appeals: District IV
Circuit Court: Dane County, Judge Frank D. Remington
Long caption: Wisconsin Justice Initiative, Inc., a Wisconsin nonstock corporation, Jacqueline E. Boynton, Jerome F. Buting, Craig R. Johnson and Fred A. Risser, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, Ann S. Jacobs, in her official capacity as Chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, Douglas La Follette, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Wisconsin, and Josh Kaul, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Wisconsin, Defendants-Appellants

Issue presented: 
In the April 7, 2020 election, Wisconsin voters ratified “Marsy’s Law”—the proposed amendment to WIS. CONST. art. I, § 9m that provided additional “privileges and protections” to crime victims.

1. Did the ballot question for the Marsy’s Law amendment in the April 2020 election “reasonably, intelligently, and fairly comprise or have reference to every essential of the amendment”?  See State ex rel. Ekern v. Zimmerman, 187 Wis. 180, 201, 204 N.W. 803 (1925).

2. Was the ballot question for the Marsy’s Law amendment misleading—either by containing misinformation or by failing to “mention[] [its subject] in accord with the fact”?  See State ex rel. Thomson v. Zimmerman, 264 Wis. 644, 660, 60 N.W.2d 416 (1953).

3. Under the “separate amendment” rule, was the Marsy’s Law amendment required to have been submitted as more than one ballot question because it encompassed more than one subject matter and accomplished more than one purpose? See McConkey v. Van Hollen, 2010 WI 57, ¶¶25-26, 41, 326 Wis. 2d 1, 783 N.W.2d 855.

2020AP1943 Lindsey Dostal v. Curtis Strand

Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review
Court of Appeals: District III
Circuit Court: Barron County, Judge James C. Babler, affirmed
Long caption: Lindsey Dostal, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Haeven Dostal, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Curtis Strand and ABC Insurance Company, Defendants, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Intervening-Defendant-Respondent-Cross-Appellant

Issue presented: 
1. Does issue preclusion stemming from a criminal conviction bar the civil claims of a victim who was not a party to the criminal proceedings?

2. Does Strand’s conviction of second-degree reckless homicide, Wis. Stat. § 940.06, preclude an “occurrence” under the Policy as a matter of law?

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