February 19, 2014
table of pending cases
Clerk of Supreme Court
Telephone: (608) 266-1880
Facsimile: (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
The following table describes pending cases the Supreme Court has accepted on petition for review, bypass, certification and original jurisdiction.
The cases included for the first time (that is, the most recently accepted cases) are marked with an * next to the case number. After the Supreme Court decides a case, the date of oral argument or date of submission on briefs is replaced with the date of the Supreme Court decision and abbreviated mandate. That mandate will generally be listed in the table for two months and then the case will be removed from the table.
The information in the table, from left to right, is as follows:
· the case number;
· an abbreviated caption of the case (case name);
· a statement of the issue(s);
· the date the Supreme Court accepted the case;
· the method by which the case came to the Supreme Court: REVW = Petition for review, CERT = Certification, CERQ = Certified Question, BYPA = Petition to bypass, ORIG = Original Action, WRIT = Petition for supervisory writ, REMD = Remanded from the U.S. Supreme Court;
· the date of oral argument or submission on briefs; or the date of the Supreme Court decision and an abbreviated mandate;
· the Court of Appeals district from which the case came, if applicable; the county;
· the date of the Court of Appeals decision, if applicable;
· whether the Court of Appeals decision is published or unpublished, and, if it is published, the citations to the public domain citation and the official reports for the Court of Appeals decision.
The statement of the issue is cursory and does not purport to be an all-inclusive, precise statement of the issues in the case. Readers interested in a case should determine the precise nature of the issues from the record and briefs filed with the Supreme Court.
The
following table covers cases accepted and decisions issued through February 19, 2014. Please direct any
comments regarding this table to the Clerk of Supreme Court,
|
Case No. |
Caption/Issue(s) |
SC Accepted |
CA Dist/ Cty |
CA Decision |
|
2010AP1639-CR |
State v. Erick O. Magett Where a defendant has entered a plea of not
guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, may a court summarily refuse to
hold a jury trial on the defense if it determines that the defendant will not
present sufficient evidence to create a jury question? Would such circumstances result in harmless
error upon appellate review? |
03/13/2013 REVW Oral Arg 09/11/2013 |
4 Grant |
Unpub. |
|
2010AP3015 |
Frank J. Sausen v. Town of
Black Creek Board of Review Whether a board of review’s assessment of
the classification of property is entitled to a presumption of
correctness. See Peninsular Power
Co. v. Wisconsin Tax Commission, 195 Wis. 231, 218 N.W. 371 (1928). |
04/18/2013 REVW Affirmed 02/19/2014 2014
WI 9 |
3 Outagamie |
Unpub. |
|
2010AP3016-CR |
State v. Nicolas
Subdiaz-Osorio Whether police may track the real-time
location of a cell phone user without a warrant. Whether a criminal suspect made an
unequivocal and unambiguous request for counsel during interrogation. Whether evidence obtained from cell phone
tracking and statements made during interrogation should be suppressed or
whether the admission of such evidence and statements constitutes harmless
error. |
03/13/2013 REVW Oral Arg 10/03/2013 In Sheboygan, Justice On Wheels |
2 Kenosha |
Unpub. |
|
*2011AP1467-CR |
State v. Donyil L. Anderson, Sr. As a matter of law, can a new trial in the
interest of justice be granted on the ground the real controversy was not
fully tried based on a forfeited challenge to a jury instruction where the
erroneous instruction was harmless error? Was it error to grant a new trial in the
interest of justice without an analysis that this is an exceptional case
warranting the extraordinary remedy of discretionary reversal? |
01/13/2014 REVW Oral Arg 04/08/2014 |
4 Rock |
Unpub. |
|
2011AP1514 |
Robert
L. Kimble v. Land Concepts, Inc, et al. Whether a
$1,000,000 punitive damages award against a title insurance company violates
the Wisconsin Constitution or the common law of Wisconsin. |
07/14/2013 REVW Oral Arg 12/19/2013 |
3 Door |
Unpub. |
|
2011AP1572 |
Julaine K. Appling, et al. v. James E.
Doyle, et al. Whether Wis. Stat. ch. 770, the domestic partnership law, violates
Art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution. |
06/12/2013 REVW Oral Arg 10/23/2013 |
4 Dane |
01/30/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 3 345 Wis. 2d 762 826 N.W.2d 666 |
|
*2011AP1653 |
State
v. Carlos A. Cummings Whether the sentence
imposed was unduly harsh. Whether there was a valid waiver of a
suspect’s Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) rights when he asked
to be taken to his cell during the interrogation? |
12/17/2013 REVW Oral Arg 03/19/2014 |
4 Portage |
Unpub. |
|
2011AP1956 |
James E. Kochanski v. Speedway
Superamerica, LLC Did the trial court err in giving Wis
JI-Civil 410 (absent witness) instructions to a jury under the circumstances
of the case? |
02/12/2013 REVW Oral Arg 09/04/2013 |
1 Milwaukee |
Unpub. |
|
2011AP2188 |
State ex rel.
Ardonis Greer v. David H. Schwarz Whether the
Department of Corrections, after erroneously issuing a discharge certificate
early, can pursue revocation proceedings against an individual for an action
committed after he was advised he was discharged from supervision. Whether a circuit
court, sitting in certiorari, has the authority to apply equitable estoppel
to the question of whether the Department of Corrections and Division of
Hearings and Appeals acted according to law in issuing a revocation order. |
06/12/2013 REVW Oral Arg 10/22/2013 |
2 Racine |
11/29/2012 Pub. 2012 WI App 122 344 Wis. 2d 639 825 N.W.2d 497 |
|
2011AP2424-CR (consolidated with 2012AP918, State v. Seaton) |
State v. Nancy J. Pinno Whether the failure to object at trial to a Sixth Amendment
public-trial violation should be analyzed on appeal as a “forfeiture” or a
“waiver” of the issue. |
02/25/2013 CERT Oral Arg 09/04/2013 |
2 Fond du Lac |
-- |
|
2011AP2482 |
Wisconsin Auto
Title Loans Inc. v. Kenneth M. Jones Is an order
denying a motion to compel arbitration immediately appealable as a “final”
order under Wis. Stat. § 808.03 or the Federal Arbitration Act? If an order
denying a motion to compel arbitration is immediately appealable, is the
trial court’s order which determined that the arbitration clause at issue is
unconscionable, contrary to AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ___
U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), and Cottonwood Financial, Ltd. V. Estes,
2012 WI App 12, 339 Wis. 2d 472, 810 N.W.2d 852 (Cottonwood II) cases? |
06/12/2013 CERT |
1 Milwaukee |
-- |
|
*2011AP2548-CR |
State v. Luis M. Rocha-Mayo Whether
the state should be allowed to introduce into evidence, during an OWI
prosecution, the results of a qualitative
breath test (PBT), not approved for evidential use in Wisconsin,
because it was administered by an individual who was not in law enforcement. Whether such a PBT result should
be accorded a prima facie
effect of intoxication. Whether
an emergency room doctor should be permitted to give testimony as to an
ultimate fact (intoxication) which embraces a legal concept for which a
definitional instruction is required. |
11/21/2013 REVW Oral Arg 02/04/2014 |
2 Kenosha |
Unpub. |
|
2011AP2597 |
Associated Bank N.A. v. Jack W.
Collier, et al. Is a creditor’s right to obtain a common
law creditor’s/receiver’s lien against a judgment debtor’s personal property
conditioned upon docketing the judgment in the Judgment and Lien Docket under
Wis. Stat. § 806.10 (1)? Is a judgment creditor entitled to relief,
in the form of a declaration, that its judgment is effectively docketed in
the Judgment and Lien Docket when a clerk accepts the docketing fee but fails
to record the judgment in the Judgment and Lien Docket? |
04/18/2013 REVW Oral Arg 09/11/2013 |
2 Waukesha |
Unpub. |
|
2011AP2608 |
Michael D. Phillips, et al. v.
Daniel G. Parmelee, et al. Does the asbestos exclusion in a
“Businessowners” commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy bar
coverage for claims made against the insured? Does an alleged misrepresentation regarding
the presence of asbestos in a building constitute an “occurrence” under a
standard CGL policy? Does the total pollution exclusion in a CGL
policy preclude coverage for the asbestos-related damages claimed against the
insured? Does a standard CGL policy provide coverage
for the claimed violation by the insured of Wis. Stat. §§ 895.446 and 943.20? Is the coverage for the damage claim
against the insured limited by the punitive damage exclusion in the CGL
policy? |
05/24/2013 REVW Affirmed 12/27/2013 2013
WI 105 |
1 Milwaukee |
01/30/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 5 345 Wis. 2d 714 826 N.W.2d 686 |
|
2011AP2698-CR |
State v. Curtis L. Jackson Whether the trial court improperly denied
a defendant’s motion to admit evidence of the victim’s reputation for
violence where the victim’s reputation was unknown to the defendant. (See McMorris v. State, 58 Wis. 2d
144, 152, 205 N.W.2d 559 (1973) and Wis. Stats. §§ 904.04 (2) (b) and 904.05
(1) and (2)). |
02/12/2013 REVW Affirmed 01/22/2014 2014
WI 4 |
1 Milwaukee |
Unpub. |
|
2011AP2733-CR |
State v. Minerva Lopez Whether the trial court properly exercised
its discretion in determining that the prosecution’s case would be prejudiced
if recorded statements of a 14-year-old victim are ruled inadmissible at
trial when the victim had turned 16 and is no longer under the testimonial
protection of Wis. Stat. § 908.08. |
02/11/2013 REVW Oral Arg 09/03/2013 |
4 Dane |
Unpub. |
|
2011AP2774 |
Attorney’s Title Guaranty Fund,
Inc. v. Town Bank Whether an enforceable creditors lien
attaches to personal property acquired after a Wis. Stats. ch. 816
supplementary proceeding has been held. Whether the fact that the supplemental
commissioner’s order and proof of service were not filed with the clerk of
court rendered the creditor’s lien unenforceable. |
05/13/2013 REVW Oral Arg 09/11/2013 Additional Oral Arg 02/25/2014 |
2 Waukesha |
01/30/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 6 345 Wis. 2d 705 827 N.W.2d 116 |
|
2011AP2833-CR |
State v. Jacqueline R. Robinson Did a trial court’s amended sentence for
criminal convictions violate the double jeopardy clause of the state and
federal constitutions? (See State
v. Burt, 2000 WI App 126, 237 Wis. 2d 610, 614 N.W.2d 42). |
02/12/2013 REVW Oral Arg 09/03/2013 |
1 Milwaukee |
Unpub. |
|
*2011AP2868-CR |
State v. Clayton W. Williams Whether Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(am)6
imposes a mandatory minimum period of confinement for OWI seventh offense and
greater. Does the statute prohibit the imposition of
probation in such cases? |
11/21/2013 REVW Oral Arg 02/05/2014 |
4 Monroe |
06/26/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 74 350 Wis. 2d 311 833 N.W.2d 846 |
|
2011AP2902 |
Board of Regents –
UW System v. Jeffrey S. Decker Whether there is
evidence in the record to show that a person engaged in “acts which harass or
intimidate another person and which serve no legitimate purpose” to support a
petition for injunctive relief under Wis. Stat. § 813.125(4)(a). See Bachowski v. Salamone, 139 Wis.
2d 397, 408, 407, N.W.2d533 (1987). |
06/14/2013 REVW Oral Arg 10/15/2013 |
4 Dane |
Unpub. |
|
2011AP2905-CR |
State v. Darryl J. Badzinski Did the trial court’s answer of “no” to a
deliberating jury’s question whether the jurors had to agree on the room in
which an assault occurred deprive a defendant of his right to a unanimous
verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? |
04/18/2013 REVW Reversed 01/29/2014 2014
WI 6 |
1 Milwaukee |
Unpub. |
|
2011AP2907-CR |
State v. Antonio D. Brown Whether an officer had probable cause under
the Fourth Amendment to stop a vehicle where the vehicle’s tail lamp was
sixty-six percent functional and in “good working order” as required under
Wis. Stat. § 347.13(1). Whether Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.
332 (2009) applies to the fact situation presented in this case and, if so,
how? |
10/15/2013 REVW Oral Arg 01/15/2014 |
1 Milwaukee |
02/26/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 17 346 Wis. 2d 98 827 N.W.2d 903 |
|
*2011AP3007-CR |
State v. Derik J. Wantland When a passenger asks “got a warrant for
that?” before an officer opens a briefcase found in the hatchback of a car,
has the driver’s general consent to search the car been limited? |
11/21/2013 REVW Oral Arg 02/20/2014 |
2 Sheboygan |
03/27/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 36 346 Wis. 2d 680 828 N.W. 2d 885 |
|
2012AP5 |
CED Properties LLC v. City of Oshkosh Does notice pleading
allow a plaintiff to challenge the entire amount of a special assessment when
the plaintiff’s complaint understated the amount of the special assessment? Does Wis. Stat. § 802.09(3) – the statute
governing relation back – allow a plaintiff to amend its complaint to
challenge the entire amount of a special assessment when the original
complaint mistakenly understated the amount of the special assessment? |
09/18/2013 REVW Oral Arg 12/18/2013 |
2 Winnebago |
06/26/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 75 348 Wis.2d 305 836 N.W.2d 654 |
|
*2012AP46-CR |
State v. Jimothy A. Jenkins Was
a defendant denied his constitutional rights to counsel when his attorney
failed to investigate, subpoena, and call to testify a neutral eyewitness who
may have provided exculpatory evidence? May a postconviction court rely on a
finding of a lack of credibility to conclude that trial counsel’s failure to
call a witness to testify at trial did not constitute ineffective assistance
of counsel? |
12/16/2013 REVW Oral Arg 04/03/2014 |
1 Milwaukee |
Unpub. |
|
*2012AP55 |
State v. Andres Romero-Georgana Whether
postconviction counsel provided ineffective assistance by challenging the
circuit court's sentencing decision rather than raising a plea withdrawal
claim based on the circuit court's failure to orally advise the defendant of
the deportation consequences of his no-contest plea, as required by Wis.
Stat. § 974.08(1)(c). |
12/19/2013 REVW Oral Arg 04/08/2014 |
3 Brown |
Unpub. |
|
2012AP122 |
Anthony Gagliano & Co., Inc. v.
Openfirst, LLC, et al. May a landlord
recover from its tenant’s subtenant (or more remote subtenants) all future
rent that the immediate tenant promised to pay, regardless of the terms of
the transfer from tenant to subtenant or the amount of time that the
subtenant occupied the premises? Whether
a tenant assigned the lease to subsequent occupiers of the premises, enabling
the landlord to recover future rent from the tenant’s assignees, or whether
subsequent occupiers of the premises were subtenants of the first tenant and
the landlord cannot recover future rent from the subtenants. Whether
the appellate court should have reversed a directed verdict ruling and
remanded the action so that a lease extension issue could be determined as a
matter of fact by a jury? |
09/18/2013 REVW Oral Arg 12/18/2013 |
1 Milwaukee |
02/26/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 19 346 Wis. 2d 47 828 N.W.2d 268 |
|
2012AP150-CR |
State v. Jessica A. Nellessen Must a criminal defendant who wants to
compel the state to disclose the identity of an informer make a preliminary
showing that the informer could give specifically delineated testimony that
might create a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt by supporting the
asserted theory of defense? |
10/15/2013 REVW Oral Arg 01/09/2014 |
4 Wood |
04/24/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 46 347 Wis. 2d 537 830 N.W.2d 266 |
|
2012AP183 |
Randy L. Betz v. Diamond Jim’s Auto
Sales Is attorney consent required for settlement
of fee-shifting claims? Whether the language of the settlement agreement
in this case, which was entered into by the parties without participation of
either party’s counsel, was a valid, unambiguous, binding contract that
released the auto seller of any
further obligation in connection with the auto buyer’s claims, including
responsibility for the auto buyer’s attorney’s fees. Whether the settlement agreement in this
case violates public policy and is therefore unenforceable. |
05/10/2013 REVW Oral Arg 01/09/2014 |
1 Milwaukee |
11/29/2012 Pub. 2012 WI App 131 344 Wis. 2d 681 825 N.W.2d 508 |
|
*2012AP320 |
Sharon R. Waranka v. Wadena
Insurance Company, et al. May
the court apply Wis. Stat. § 895.04 to the plaintiff’s wrongful death
action to define the class of beneficiaries, the limitation on non-economic
damages, and to determine who can bring an action for wrongful death, where
the accident causing death occurred in another state, which precludes
application of Wis. Stat. § 895.03?
May Wis. Stat. § 895.04 be applied to a case without also
applying Wis. Stat. § 895.03, which creates a cause of action for
wrongful death where the death occurred in Wisconsin? Is conflict of law analysis required in a
wrongful death action, where a death occurred in another state but where most
of the relevant parties and the relatives of the decedent are domiciled in
Wisconsin or brought into the lawsuit under Wisconsin’s direct action
statute? |
11/20/2013 REVW Oral Arg 02/20/2014 |
2 Ozaukee |
05/29/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 56 348 Wis. 2d 111 832 N.W.2d 133 |
|
2012AP336-CR |
State v. Bobby L. Tate Whether obtaining a cell phone’s location
constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. If so, what probable cause standard applies
before police can obtain location information? Whether statutory authorization is
necessary before a court can permit a cell phone location search, and whether
such statutory authorization exists. |
06/12/2013 REVW Oral Arg 10/03/2013 (in Sheboygan, Justice On Wheels) |
1 Milwaukee |
Unpub. |
|
2012AP337-CR |
State v. Muhammad Sarfraz Whether the explicit
details of alleged prior consensual sexual contact between the alleged victim
and the defendant were admissible under Wis. Stat. § 972.11(2)(b), an
exception to Wisconsin’s Rape Shield Law. If the trial court erroneously exercised
its discretion when it excluded the prior sex acts evidence, was the error
harmless? |
09/17/2013 REVW Oral Arg 12/18/2013 |
1 Milwaukee |
05/29/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 57 348 Wis. 2d 57 832 N.W. 2d 346 |
|
*2012AP378-W |
Lorenzo D. Kyles v. William Pollard What is the appropriate procedure to follow
when challenging trial counsel’s alleged failure to file a notice of intent
to pursue postconviction relief? |
12/17/2013 REVW Oral Arg 04/03/2014 |
1 Milwaukee |
-- |
|
2012AP392 |
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
v. Hague Quality Water,
International May a subrogated insurer that pays for
damage to a rental property caused by a water softener circumvent the
manufacturer’s warranty by pursuing tort claims or does the economic loss
doctrine bar such tort claims where the homeowner purchased the water
softener that included a warranty limiting the water softener manufacturer’s
liability for defects to the cost of repair or replacement of the water
softener and disclaimed responsibility for incidental, consequential, or
secondary damages and the purchaser/homeowner installed the water softener
into a rental property; and the purchaser/homeowner procured the insurance to
cover the risk that the water softener may leak and cause damage to the
rental property? |
10/15/2013 REVW Affirmed 01/28/2014 2014
WI 5 |
2 Sheboygan |
01/30/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 10 345 Wis. 2d 741 826 N.W.2d 412 |
|
*2012AP393-CR |
State v. Cortez Lorenzo Toliver Does
the general rule that a defect of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised
at any time conflict with the appellate rule that a party is not permitted to
raise an argument for the first time on appeal? Where a court does not make a specific
probable cause finding required by Wis. Stat. § 970.032, does the court lose
subject matter jurisdiction over the criminal proceeding? |
12/17/2013 REVW Oral Arg 04/03/2014 |
2 Racine |
Unpub. |
|
*2012AP520-CR |
State v. Adrean L. Smith Whether, during custodial interrogation,
police violated a suspect’s right to remain silent by continuing to question
him after he stated, “I don’t know nothing about this stuff, so I don’t want
to talk about this.” |
12/17/2013 REVW Oral Arg 03/19/2014 |
1 Milwaukee |
Unpub. |
|
*2012AP580 |
Russell Adams v. Northland Equipment
Company, Inc. May
the trial court compel the plaintiff in an action for the recovery of
personal injuries brought against the tortfeasor and its insurance company,
to accept the settlement to which the plaintiff objects upon the motion of a
worker’s compensation insurance carrier that has paid worker’s compensation
benefits to the plaintiff arising out of the same occurrence for which the
plaintiff has brought the common law action? Is
it a violation of the Wisconsin Constitution, Article I, Section 5, Right to
Trial by Jury, or Article I, Section 9, Right to Remedy, to compel a
plaintiff in an action for the recovery of personal injuries brought against
the tortfeasor and its insurance company, to accept the settlement to which
the plaintiff objects upon the motion of a worker’s compensation carrier that
has paid worker’s compensation benefits to the plaintiff arising out of the
same occurrence for which the plaintiff has brought the common law action? If
a court may compel a plaintiff to accept a settlement offer pursuant to the
authority to resolve disputes under Wisconsin Statutes § 102.29, must
the court require a hearing compliant with due process, including an
opportunity to present witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses and the other
elements of a hearing to guarantee due process? Where
a worker’s compensation carrier is seeking to compel a plaintiff to accept a
proposed settlement pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes § 102.29, what is the
standard of the burden of proof required:
by the clear and convincing evidence, by the preponderance of the
evidence and/or by another standard? In resolving a dispute between a
plaintiff/injured employee and the worker’s compensation carrier where the worker’s
compensation carrier has brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to accept a
settlement under the authority of Wisconsin Statutes § 102.29, such
settlement being offered by the tortfeasor and/or its liability insurance
carrier, is it error to allow a tortfeasor and/or its liability insurance
carrier to participate in the presentation of evidence or argument in support
of such motion? |
11/20/2013 REVW Oral Arg 02/04/2014 |
4 Rock |
Unpub. |
|
*2012AP584-AC |
League of Women Voters of Wisconsin
Education Network, Inc. v. Scott Walker, et al. Do
the portions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 require constitutionally qualified and
registered voters to display a specified form of government-issued photo
identification at the polling place as a prerequisite to voting constitute an
impermissible additional qualification to vote in violation of Wis. Const.
Art. III, § 1? Do
the portions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 require constitutionally qualified and
registered voters to display a specified form of government-issued photo
identification at the polling place as a prerequisite to voting exceed
legislative authority under Wis. Const. Art. III, § 2? Did the petitioners have standing to bring
this action challenging the facial constitutionality of the Voter ID
provisions? |
11/20/2013 REVW Oral Arg 02/25/2014 |
4 Dane |
06/26/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 77 348 Wis. 2d 714 834 N.W.2d 393 |
|
2012AP597 |
Scott Partenfelder, et al. v. Steve
Rohde, et al. Whether the Federal Railroad Safety Act
(“FRSA”) preempts plaintiffs’ state law negligence and safe-place claims, or
whether these claims fall within the “specific, individual hazard” exception
to FRSA preemption. |
09/17/2013 REVW Oral Arg 01/14/2014 |
1 Milwaukee |
04/24/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 48 347 Wis. 2d 385 830 N.W.2d115 |
|
2012AP667 |
Brian Casey v. Ronald Smith, et al. Whether a non-trucking-use insurance policy
provided coverage for an accident that occurred when a semi-truck was driven
to a repair shop for alleged nonessential maintenance. |
10/15/2013 REVW Oral Arg 01/14/2014 |
3 Dunn |
02/26/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 24 346 Wis. 2d 111 827 N.W.2d 917 |
|
2012AP829 |
Ronald E. Belding, Jr. v. Deeanna L.
Demoulin May Wis. Stat. § 632.32 (5) € be used to
prohibit an insurance provision expressly authorized by another subsection of
Wis. Stat. § 632.32 (5)? May a statute, unambiguous on its face, be
rewritten by the court based upon a perceived conflict with another statute? Should Wis. Stat. § 632.32 (6) (d) be
construed to prohibit the “drive other car” exclusion expressly authorized by
Wis. Stat. § 632.32 (5) (j)? |
05/13/2013 REVW Oral Arg 10/23/2013 |
2 Kenosha |
02/26/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 26 346 Wis. 2d 160 828 N.W.2d 890 |
|
2012AP858 |
Vicki L. Blasing v. Zurich American Ins.
Co., et al. Does the omnibus statute, Wis. Stat. §
632.32(3)(a), require that a liability insurer defend and indemnify a
tortfeasor where the alleged negligence caused injury to the named insured
person? |
06/13/2013 REVW Oral Arg 10/15/2013 |
4 Jefferson |
02/26/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 27 346 Wis. 2d 30 827 N.W.2d 909 |
|
2012AP918 (consolidated with 2011AP2424-CR, State v. Pinno) |
State v. Travis J. Seaton Whether
the failure to object at trial to a Sixth Amendment public-trial violation
should be analyzed on appeal as a “forfeiture” or a “waiver” of the issue. |
02/25/2013 CERT Oral Arg 09/04/2013 |
2 Fond du Lac |
-- |
|
*2012AP1047 |
Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor
and Industry Review Whether
de novo review of a statute's
underlying purpose is a necessary judicial function, regardless of the level
of deference granted to an administrative agency's interpretation of a
statute. Whether a full-time health care intern with
full access to HIPAA (Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)-protected patient medical records and an
"all-access" badge to medical facilities is protected under the
HCWPA (Health Care Worker Protection Act). |
11/13/2013 REVW Oral Arg 03/13/2014 |
1 Milwaukee |
05/29/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 62 348 Wis. 2d 1 832 N.W.2d 139 |
|
*2012AP1307-CR |
State v. Jeremiah J. Purtell Whether it was appellate error in reversing
a trial court's decision based on a sua sponte argument and factual
determinations that were not presented to the trial court. |
11/20/2013 REVW Oral Arg 02/05/2014 |
2 Washington |
Unpub. |
|
2012AP1426 |
State v. Brandon
H. Bentdahl Does State v.
Brooks, 113 Wis. 2d 347, 335 N.W.2d 354 (1983) (a trial court has
discretion to dismiss a refusal charge after a defendant pleads guilty to a
charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an
intoxicant (OWI)) apply when a defendant goes to trial on an OWI charge? Does Brooks
apply under current law to allow trial courts to dismiss refusal charges
under their discretionary authority? |
06/13/2013 REVW Modified,
affirmed, remanded 12/27/2013 2013
WI 106 |
4 Columbia |
Unpub. |
|
*2012AP1582-CR |
State v. Andrew J. Matasek Whether the circuit court has the
discretion under Wis. Stat. § 973.0315 to withhold its judgment on
expungement until after a defendant successfully completes probation. |
11/20/2013 REVW Oral Arg 02/20/2014 |
|
05/29/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 63 348 Wis. 2d 243 831 N.W.2d 450 |
|
*2012AP1644 |
Rachelle R. Jackson v. Wisconsin
County Mut. Insurance Corp. Did a deputy sheriff qualify as an underinsured
motorist (UIM) under an insurer’s policy, based on her “use” of a vehicle,
when she was hit by the insured’s vehicle while walking in front of it in a
pedestrian crosswalk, and when she was not at the time manipulating,
controlling, or in any other way connected to the vehicle at the time she was
hit, because she intended to direct other vehicles to allow the insured’s
vehicle to merge into traffic? If
a deputy sheriff was “using” the insured’s vehicle, is she entitled to UIM
benefits under the insurer’s policy based on her use of the UIM vehicle that
injured her? |
11/26/2013 REVW Oral Arg 03/13/2014 |
1 Milwaukee |
05/29/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 65 348 Wis. 2d 203 832 N.W.2d 163 |
|
*2012AP1652 |
Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP, et
al. v. Scott Walker, et al. What is the constitutional validity of Act 23’s photo identification
requirements under the suffrage provisions in Wis. Const. art. III? |
Oral Arg 02/25/2014 BYPA Oral Arg 02/25/2014 |
4 Dane |
-- |
|
*2012AP1769-CR (Consolidated with 2012AP1770-CR and
2012AP1863-CR) |
State v. Martin P. O’Brien Must
hearsay admitted at a preliminary hearing under newly enacted Wis. Stats. §
970.038 meet a threshold level of reliability before a court can use it to
find probable cause? At
a preliminary hearing, can the State satisfy its burden of showing the higher
degree of probable cause needed to bind over a felony for trial by relying
solely on a hearsay witness who offers the criminal complaint, for which a
lesser degree of probable cause is required? Can
a court use the recently enacted Wis. Stats § 970.038 to limit defense
cross-examination of a hearsay witness to the question of whether that
witness heard the hearsay, rather than the plausibility of the out-of-court
declarant's account of the underlying offense? Following
the recent enactment of Wis. Stats § 970.038, before the defendant can call
his own witness at a preliminary hearing, must the defense make an offer of
proof that the testimony will be dispositive to defeat probable cause, rather
than simply relevant to the plausibility of the charged offense? Did
the preliminary hearing court's application of Wis. Stats § 970.038, which
admitted hearsay and precluded the defendant from calling the out-of-court
declarant to test his ability to see, hear and remember the relevant facts
pertaining to his story, violate the defendant’s right to due process? Does
a defendant’s constitutional right to confront his accusers apply at an
adversary-type preliminary hearing such as that granted by Wisconsin
statutes? Is
a defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel at a preliminary
hearing denied when the state’s only evidence offered is the criminal
complaint and the defendant is not permitted to cross-examine witnesses with
personal knowledge? Whether
§ 970.038 of the Wisconsin Statutes unconstitutionally deprives a defendant
of due process of law. |
12/05/2013 REVW Oral Arg 03/14/2014 |
2 Walworth |
08/30/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 97 349 Wis. 2d 667 836 N.W.2d 840 |
|
*2012AP1770-CR (Consolidated with 2012AP1769-CR And 2012AP1863-CR) |
State v. Kathleen M. O’Brien Must
hearsay admitted at a preliminary hearing under newly enacted Wis. Stats. §
970.038 meet a threshold level of reliability before a court can use it to
find probable cause? At
a preliminary hearing, can the State satisfy its burden of showing the higher
degree of probable cause needed to bind over a felony for trial by relying
solely on a hearsay witness who offers the criminal complaint, for which a
lesser degree of probable cause is required? Can
a court use the recently enacted Wis. Stats § 970.038 to limit defense
cross-examination of a hearsay witness to the question of whether that
witness heard the hearsay, rather than the plausibility of the out-of-court
declarant's account of the underlying offense? Following
the recent enactment of Wis. Stats § 970.038, before the defendant can call
his own witness at a preliminary hearing, must the defense make an offer of
proof that the testimony will be dispositive to defeat probable cause, rather
than simply relevant to the plausibility of the charged offense? Did
the preliminary hearing court's application of Wis. Stats § 970.038, which
admitted hearsay and precluded the defendant from calling the out-of-court declarant
to test his ability to see, hear and remember the relevant facts pertaining
to his story, violate the defendant’s right to due process? Does
a defendant’s constitutional right to confront his accusers apply at an
adversary-type preliminary hearing such as that granted by Wisconsin
statutes? Is
a defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel at a preliminary
hearing denied when the state’s only evidence offered is the criminal
complaint and the defendant is not permitted to cross-examine witnesses with
personal knowledge? Whether § 970.038 of the Wisconsin Statutes
unconstitutionally deprives a defendant of due process of law. |
12/05/2013 REVW Oral Arg 03/14/2014 |
2 Walworth |
08/30/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 97 349 Wis. 2d 667 836 N.W.2d 840 |
|
2012AP1812 |
County of Grant v. Daniel A. Vogt Does an officer who approaches a vehicle
without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a violation of the
law has been committed, and then knocks on the window and motions for the
driver to roll down his window, unreasonably seize the driver? |
10/15/2013 REVW Oral Arg 01/09/2014 |
4 Grant |
Unpub. |
|
*2012AP1863-CR (Consolidated with 2012AP1769-CR and 2012AP1770-CR) |
State v. Charles E. Butts Must
hearsay admitted at a preliminary hearing under newly enacted Wis. Stats. §
970.038 meet a threshold level of reliability before a court can use it to
find probable cause? At
a preliminary hearing, can the State satisfy its burden of showing the higher
degree of probable cause needed to bind over a felony for trial by relying
solely on a hearsay witness who offers the criminal complaint, for which a
lesser degree of probable cause is required? Can
a court use the recently enacted Wis. Stats § 970.038 to limit defense
cross-examination of a hearsay witness to the question of whether that
witness heard the hearsay, rather than the plausibility of the out-of-court
declarant's account of the underlying offense? Following
the recent enactment of Wis. Stats § 970.038, before the defendant can call
his own witness at a preliminary hearing, must the defense make an offer of
proof that the testimony will be dispositive to defeat probable cause, rather
than simply relevant to the plausibility of the charged offense? Did
the preliminary hearing court's application of Wis. Stats § 970.038, which
admitted hearsay and precluded the defendant from calling the out-of-court
declarant to test his ability to see, hear and remember the relevant facts
pertaining to his story, violate the defendant’s right to due process? Does
a defendant’s constitutional right to confront his accusers apply at an
adversary-type preliminary hearing such as that granted by Wisconsin
statutes? Is
a defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel at a preliminary
hearing denied when the state’s only evidence offered is the criminal
complaint and the defendant is not permitted to cross-examine witnesses with
personal knowledge? Whether § 970.038 of the Wisconsin Statutes
unconstitutionally deprives a defendant of due process of law. |
12/05/2013 REVW Oral Arg 03/14/2014 |
2 Walworth |
08/30/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 97 349 Wis. 2d 667 836 N.W.2d 840 |
|
2012AP1869 |
Richard S. Wilcox v. Estate of Ralph
Hines May
a person establish possession of property “under claim of title”, as required
under Wisconsin’s 20-year adverse possession statute, Wis. Stat. §893.25, by
use alone where the possessor expressly disclaims ownership of the property? Is the fact that permission to occupy the
property was sought and granted by a person erroneously thought to be the
true owner irrelevant to the question of whether the possessor occupies the
property under claim of title? |
09/17/2013 REVW Oral Arg 12/19/2013 |
4 Sauk |
05/29/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 68 348 Wis. 2d 124 831 N.W.2d 791 |
|
*2012AP1967 |
Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisors
LLC, et al. Must
a shareholder alleging breach of fiduciary duty against a corporation's
directors plead facts that, if true, would satisfy the conditions for
director liability required by the Business Judgment Rule and the Director
Immunity Statute, Wis. Stat. § 180.0828, in order to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted? May
being compelled to sell one's shares in a publicly traded corporation as a
result of a duly authorized merger constitute legal harm? Can
minority shareholders in a corporation state a claim against the majority for
breach of fiduciary duty where the majority allegedly facilitated, and
thereafter voted its shares in favor of a merger that paid the minority more
per share than the majority received? |
12/16/2013 REVW Oral Arg 03/18/2014 |
4 Wood |
09/25/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 107 350 Wis. 2d 347 837 N.W.2d 624 |
|
2012AP2067 |
Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott Walker Whether the following provisions of 2011
Wis. Act 10 are unconstitutional: The provision prohibiting collective
bargaining between municipal employers and the certified representatives for
municipal general employee bargaining units on all subjects except base
wages. Wis. Stat. § 111.70(4)(mb)1. The provisions limiting negotiated base
wage increases to the increase in the Consumer Price Index, unless a higher
increase is approved by voter referendum.
Wis. Stat. §§ 111.70(4)(mb)2., 66.0506, and 118.245. The provisions prohibiting “fair share”
agreements that previously required all represented employees to pay a
proportionate share of the costs of collective bargaining and contract
administration. Wis. Stat. § 111.70(1)(f)
and the third sentence of Wis. Stat. § 111.70(2). The provision prohibiting municipal
employers from deducting union dues from the wages of municipal
employees. Wis. Stat. § 111.70(3g). The provision requiring annual
recertification elections of the representatives of all bargaining units,
requiring 51% of the votes of the bargaining unit members (regardless of the
number of members who vote), and requiring the commission to assess costs of
such elections. Wis. Stat. §
111.70(4)(d)3. |
06/14/2013 CERT Contempt
order of Circuit Court vacated 11/21/2013 2013
WI 91 |
4 Dane |
-- |
|
2012AP2085 |
Kelli Brandenburg v. Robert Luethi Does
Desaire v. Solomon Valley Co-Op, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14523 (D. Kan.
Sept. 14, 1995) set forth an appropriate standard for evaluating whether a
defendant can be liable for his/her independent contractor’s alleged
negligence? Should the “inherently dangerous” standard
for triggering a principal’s vicarious liability for an independent
contractor’s negligence apply to individuals who do not regularly have
employees or hire independent contractors? |
10/21/2013 REVW Oral Arg 01/15/2014 |
3 Trempealeau |
Unpub. |
|
*2012AP2115 |
Timothy Williams v. Valued Services of
Wisconsin LLC Whether
the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA) precludes a court from determining that a
very high interest rate is, by itself, unconscionable. What role should a high interest rate play
in a court’s determination of unconscionability under the WCA? |
11/20/2013 CERT Voluntary
dismissal 01/16/2014 |
4 Sauk |
-- |
|
*2012AP2140-CR |
State v. Angelica C. Nelson If a circuit court prohibits a defendant in
a criminal case from testifying in her own defense, does Wisconsin case law
provide that the defendant is automatically entitled to a new trial? |
12/16/2013 REVW Oral Arg 03/18/2014 |
3 Eau Claire |
Unpub. |
|
*2012AP2170 |
State v. Joseph J. Spaeth Wisconsin Stat. § 980.02(1m) and (2) requires that a commitment petition
be filed “before the person is released or discharged” and alleges that a
person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense. Does § 980.02 also require that the
commitment petition be filed before the person is released or discharged from
a sentence that was imposed for the same sexually violent offense that is
alleged in the petition as the predicate offense (See State v.
Gilbert, 2012 WI 72, ¶51, 342 Wis. 2d 82, 816 N.W.2d 215)? |
11/26/2013 CERT Oral Arg 03/13/2014 |
2 Winnebago |
-- |
|
*2012AP2185-CR |
State v. James R. Hunt Whether it was error for the trial court to
prevent a witness from testifying that he did not send the defendant illegal
materials. |
12/17/2013 REVW Oral Arg 03/19/2014 |
4 Jefferson |
Unpub. |
|
*2012AP2196 |
Jim Weissman, et al. v. Tyson Prepared
Foods, Inc. Whether pre- and post-shift donning and
doffing of generic work clothing is non-compensable time under Wis. Stat. §
103.02 and the Wisconsin Admin. Code § DWD 272.12, because such work clothing
is not "integral" and "indispensable" to employees'
principal work activities. |
12/16/2013 REVW Oral Arg 04/08/2014 |
4 Jefferson |
09/25/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 109 350 Wis. 2d 380 838 N.W.2d 502 |
|
2012AP2402 |
Hailey Marie-Joe Force, et al. v.
American Family Mutual Insurance
Company, et al. Can the minor children of a man killed in a
car accident recover for wrongful death under Wis. Stat. § 895.04 when there is a
surviving spouse, but that surviving spouse has been estranged from the
decedent for over ten years, thus precluding any recovery by the spouse from
which to set aside the children’s share? If the statute does not allow the children
to recover absent a recovery by the surviving spouse, does the statute
violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by
impermissibly differentiating between minor dependent children by
conditioning their recovery on the viability of the surviving spouse’s
claim? Is there a rational basis for providing
recovery to minor children whose deceased parent’s surviving spouse has a
viable claim and denying recovery to those whose deceased parent’s surviving
spouse does not? |
10/21/2013 CERT Oral Arg 01/15/2014 |
2 Waukesha |
-- |
|
*2012AP2499 |
Eileen W. Legue v. City of Racine Does governmental immunity apply when
someone is injured because an officer proceeds against a traffic signal as
authorized by Wis. Stat. § 346.03(2)(b), if the officer slowed the vehicle
and activated lights and sirens as required by § 346.03(3) but nonetheless
arguably violated the duty to operate the vehicle "with due regard under
the circumstances" as required by § 346.03(5)? |
11/26/2013 CERT Oral Arg 03/14/2014 |
2 Racine |
-- |
|
*2012AP2513-CR |
State v. Raphfeal Lyfold Myrick Did the court of
appeals amend a statutory rule of evidence (Wis. Stat. § 904.10) making it
applicable in a situation that was excluded by the supreme court when the
supreme court promulgated the rule? |
01/13/2014 REVW Oral Arg 04/09/2014 |
1 Milwaukee |
10/30/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 123 351 Wis. 2d 32 839 N.W.2d 129 |
|
*2012AP2557-CR |
State v. William F. Bokenyi Did
a prosecutor's sentencing argument breach a plea agreement by undermining the
agreed-upon sentencing recommendation? Was
defense counsel ineffective for failing to object to the alleged breach of
the plea agreement? Should the court overrule the court of
appeals' decision in State v. Sprang, 2004 WI App 121, 274 Wis. 2d
784, 683 N.W.2d 522? |
12/06/2013 REVW Oral Arg 03/18/2014 |
3 Polk |
Unpub. |
|
*2013AP221 |
Dow Family, LLC v. PHH Mortgage
Corporation Whether the common law doctrine of equitable assignment, the Uniform
Commercial Code or both exempt assignments of real estate mortgages from the
Statute of Frauds, with the result that a mortgage automatically accompanies
a mortgage note upon negotiation or transfer of the latter without any
written assignment of mortgage or recording of any document being necessary. Whether the purchaser’s good faith in purchasing the property is
relevant to the right to foreclose. |
12/16/2013 REVW Oral Arg 03/19/2014 |
3 Barron |
09/25/2013 Pub. 2013 WI App 114 350 Wis. 2d 411 838 N.W.2d 119 |