WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT

 

JUNE 2008

 

            This statistical report presents information about the case filings and dispositions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the month of June 2008 and to date for the term that began on September 1, 2007.

 

 

Opinions Issued by the Court

 

            The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 24 cases in June.  Information about these opinions, including the Court’s dispositions and the names of the authoring justices, can be found on the attached table.

 

                                                                                             June 2008       Term to Date

 

Total number of cases resolved by opinion ..............................      24                   73

      Attorney/Judicial disciplinary cases.....................................        2                   26

      Civil cases.........................................................................      12                   30

      Criminal cases ..................................................................      10                   17

           

 

Petitions for Review

 

            A total of 57 petitions for review were filed during the month.  A petition for review asks the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.  The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is discretionary, meaning that review is granted in selected cases only.  In June, the Supreme Court disposed of 76 petitions for review, of which 8 petitions were granted.  The Supreme Court currently has 171 petitions for review pending.

 

                                                                                             June 2008       Term to Date

 

Petitions for Review filed..........................................................     57                  683

      Civil cases.........................................................................     38                  398

      Criminal cases...................................................................     19                  285


 

Petition for Review dispositions................................................     76                  690    

      Civil cases (petitions granted).............................................     32  (4)            386  (40)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted).......................................     44  (4)            304  (22)

 

 

Petitions for Bypass

 

            The Supreme Court received 1 petition for bypass and disposed of no petitions for bypass this month.  In a petition for bypass, a party requests that the Supreme Court take jurisdiction of an appeal or other proceeding pending in the Court of Appeals.  A matter appropriate for bypass is usually one which meets one or more of the criteria for review by the Supreme Court and one the Supreme Court concludes it will ultimately choose to consider regardless of how the Court of Appeals might decide the issues.  A petition for bypass may also be granted where there is a clear need to hasten the ultimate appellate decision.  The Supreme Court currently has 3 petitions for bypass pending.

 

                                                                                             June 2008       Term to Date

 

Petitions for Bypass filed..........................................................       1                    10

      Civil cases.........................................................................       1                      7

      Criminal cases...................................................................       0                      3

 

Petition for Bypass dispositions................................................       0                      9    

      Civil cases (petitions granted).............................................       0  (0)                6  (0)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted).......................................       0  (0)                3  (0)

 

 

Requests for Certification

 

            During June 2008, the Supreme Court received 4 requests for certification and disposed of no requests for certification.  In a request for certification, the Court of Appeals asks the Supreme Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction before the Court of Appeals hears the matter.  A request for certification is decided on the basis of the same criteria as a petition to bypass.  The Supreme Court currently has 6 requests for certification pending.

 

                                                                                             June 2008       Term to Date

 

Requests for Certification filed..................................................       4                    13

      Civil cases.........................................................................       3                      7

      Criminal cases...................................................................       1                      6

 

Request for Certification dispositions........................................       0                    18    

      Civil cases (requests granted).............................................       0  (0)                9  (3)

      Criminal cases (requests granted).......................................       0  (0)                9  (6)

 

 

 

           


Regulatory Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions

 

            During the month, a total of 4 matters within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Court (bar admission, lawyer discipline, and judicial discipline) were filed (including 1 reopened case).  The Supreme Court also received 5 petitions for supervisory writ, which ask the Supreme Court to order the Court of Appeals or a circuit court to take a certain action in a case.  No original actions were filed.  An original action is a petition asking the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction over a particular matter.  When an opinion is issued in these cases, the disposition is included in “Opinions Issued by the Court” above; otherwise, the case is disposed of by order and is included in the totals below.  The Supreme Court currently has 44 regulatory matters and 14 petitions for supervisory writ pending.

 

                                                                                             June 2008       Term to Date

 

Filings

 

Attorney/Judicial disciplinary and bar admission........................        4                   63

Petitions for Supervisory Writ..................................................        5                   46

Other (including Original Actions).............................................        0                     2

 

Dispositions by Order

 

Attorney/Judicial disciplinary and bar admission........................        3                   16

Petitions for Supervisory Writ..................................................        5                   34

Other (including Original Actions).............................................        1                   14

 


DECISIONS BY THE

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

 

OPINIONS ISSUED DURING JUNE 2008

 

 

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2007AP001004-D

OLR v. Jones

4 Month Suspension

Per Curiam[1]

Butler, Jr., J. did not participate.

 

06/03/2008

2006AP000578-D

OLR v. Washington

Reinstatement Granted Upon Conditions

Per Curiam

Butler, Jr., J. did not participate.

 

06/20/2008

 

 

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2004AP001104-CR

State v. Keyes

Court of Appeals Affirmed

Majority Opinion:  Bradley, J.

 

06/03/2008

2004AP001105-CR

State v. Keyes

Court of Appeals Affirmed

Majority Opinion:  Bradley, J.

 

06/03/2008

2005AP002796

Richards v. Badger Mutual Insurance

Court of Appeals Affirmed

Majority Opinion:  Roggensack, J.

Dissent:  Abrahamson, C.J., joined by Bradley, J. and Butler, J.

 

06/03/2008

2006AP001114-CR

State v. Popenhagen

Reversed and Remanded

Majority Opinion:  Abrahamson, C.J.

Concurrence:  Prosser, J.

Concurrence/Dissent:  Ziegler, J.

Dissent:  Roggensack, J.

 

06/04/2008

2006AP000396

Donohoo v. Action Wisconsin

Court of Appeals Reversed

Majority Opinion:  Bradley, J.

Dissent:  Roggensack, J., joined by Prosser, J. and Ziegler, J.

 

06/05/2008

2005AP002175-CR

State v. Duchow

Court of Appeals Reversed

Majority Opinion:  Roggensack, J.

 

06/10/2008

2005AP002311-CR

State v. Plude

Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded

Majority Opinion:  Roggensack, J.

Concurrence:  Butler, Jr., J.

Concurrence:  Ziegler, J.

 

06/10/2008

2006AP00672-CR

State v. LaCount

Court of Appeals Affirmed

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

Concurrence:  Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J. and Butler, Jr., J.

Concurrence:  Roggensack, J., joined by Butler, Jr., J.

 

06/10/2008

2006AP001847-CR

State v. Jorgensen

Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded

Majority Opinion:  Ziegler, J.

Concurrence:  Abrahamson, C.J., joined by Bradley, J. and Butler, Jr., J.

 

06/13/2008

2006AP000424

Diana G. Sanders v. Estate of David R. Sanders

Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

Prosser, J. and Roggensack, J. did not participate.

 

06/18/2008

2006AP001153

Acuity v. Kishan Bagadia

Court of Appeals Affirmed

Majority Opinion:  Roggensack, J.

 

06/18/2008


 

2006AP001974

Acuity v. Kishan Bagadia

Court of Appeals Affirmed

Majority Opinion:  Roggensack, J.

 

06/18/2008

2006AP000064-CR

State v. David G. Straszkowski

Court of Appeals Affirmed

Majority Opinion:  Abrahamson, C.J.

Concurrence:  Butler, Jr., J., joined by Ziegler, J.

 

06/19/2008

2007AP000230-W

Adrian T. Hipp v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County

Court of Appeals Affirmed

Majority Opinion:  Bradley, J.

Concurrence:  Butler, Jr., J.

Abrahamson, C.J. did not participate.

 

06/20/2008

2005AP001473

WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex

Court of Appeals Reversed in part, Affirmed in part, and Remanded

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

Concurrence:  Abrahamson, C.J.

Butler, Jr., J. did not participate.

 

06/25/2008

2005AP00174

WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Thiensville

Court of Appeals Reversed in part, Affirmed in part, and Remanded

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

Concurrence:  Abrahamson, C.J.

Butler, Jr., J. did not participate.

 

06/25/2008

2005AP00175

WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Port Washington

Court of Appeals Reversed in part, Affirmed in part, and Remanded

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

Concurrence:  Abrahamson, C.J.

Butler, Jr., J. did not participate.

 

06/25/2008

2006AP002292

C. Coakley Relocation Systems v. City of Milwaukee

Court of Appeals Affirmed

Majority Opinion:  Ziegler, J.

Concurrence:  Roggensack, J.

 

06/25/2008

2006AP000964

Racine County v. Int'l Assoc. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

Dissent:  Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J. and Butler, Jr., J.

 

06/26/2008

2006AP001379-CR

State v. Bruce Duncan MacArthur

Circuit court Affirmed and Cause Remanded

Majority Opinion:  Ziegler, J.

Concurrence:  Bradley, J.

Prosser, J. did not participate.

 

06/26/2008

2006AP001954-CR

State v. Keith A. Davis

Circuit court Affirmed

Majority Opinion:  Ziegler, J.

Dissent:  Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J.

 

06/26/2008

2006AP000813

Ramachandra Rao, M.D. v. WMA Securities, Inc.

Court of Appeals Affirmed

Majority Opinion:  Abrahamson, C.J.

Concurrence:  Ziegler, J.

Dissent:  Prosser, J., joined by Roggensack, J.

 

06/27/2008

 



[1] “Per Curiam” means “by the Court.”  Opinions issued per curiam are handed down by the Court as a whole.