July 26, 2011
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· whether the Court of Appeals decision is published or unpublished, and, if it is published, the citations to the public domain citation and the official reports for the Court of Appeals decision.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 July 26, 2011. 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 |
|
2006AP1229/ 2006AP2512/ 2007AP369 |
For “excusable neglect,” is it necessary to
have evidence of the actions that caused the neglect or of the reasons why a “carefully
structured process to respond to complaints” did not work if the party failed
to timely respond? -- OR Did failure to answer the complaint in a
timely manner constitute excusable neglect? Under Wis. Stat. ss 632.24 and 631.01(1),
can a direct action claim against an insurer be maintained where the
insurance policy was not delivered or issued for delivery in Can a corporate officer be held personally
liable for negligence that occurs while he is performing his job and is
within the scope of this employment for a solvent and insured corporation? Do public policy factors and a lack of
forseeability preclude a finding of negligence as a matter of law? |
06/28/2010 REVW Affirmed
in part, reversed in part, remanded 07/19/2011 2011
WI 81 |
1 |
12/22/2009 Pub 2010 WI App 2 323 Wis.2d 80 779 N.W.2d 444 |
|
2007AP35 |
David
Rasmussen v. General Motors Corporation, et al. Whether |
09/14/2010 REVW Affirmed 07/01/2011 2011
WI 52 |
1 |
06/30/2010 Unpub |
|
2008AP1830 |
MBS-Certified Public
Accountants, LLC v. Wisconsin Inc. Does the
voluntary payment doctrine bar a plaintiff from seeking damages under Wis.
Stat. §§ 100.18, 100.207 and §§ 946.80 – 946.88 where the legislature created
private rights of action for damages from prohibited billing practices? Must individuals
pay illegal charges or fees “under protest” to preserve the right to bring a
statutory claim for damages where the legislature did not include a protest
requirement in the statutes? Is there an exception to the voluntary
payment doctrine (See Putnam v. Time Warner Cable of Se. Wis.,
2002 WI 108, 255 Wis. 2d 447, 649 N.W.2d 626 and Butcher v. Ameritech
Corp., 2007 WI App 5, 298 Wis. 2d 468, 727 N.W.2d 546) that prevents
alleged violators of Wis. Stat. §§ 100.18, 100.207 and §§ 946.80 – 946.88
from asserting the doctrine? |
03/16/2011 REVW Oral Arg 09/16/2011 |
1 |
09/29/2010 Unpub |
|
2008AP1972 |
Thomas W. Jandre v. Physicians
Insurance Company of Does |
03/16/2011 REVW Oral Arg 09/16/2011 |
2 |
10/27/2010 2010 WI App 136 330 |
|
2008AP2206-CR |
State v. Charles Lamar Whether, at
resentencing, a defendant would be entitled to credit on a new sentence for
time spent confined on a vacated sentence, which was served concurrently with
another non-vacated sentence, when the new sentence is imposed consecutively
to all other sentences (See Wis. Stat. § 973.04). |
10/27/2010 REVW Affirmed 06/29/2011 2011
WI 50 |
1 |
09/29/2009 Pub 2009 WI App 133 321 Wis.2d 334 773 N.W.2d 446 |
|
2008AP2595 |
Wanda Brethorst v. Allstate Property and
Casualty Ins. Whether a finding of wrongful denial of
benefits is a condition precedent to proceeding with discovery in a
first-party bad faith claim based on wrongful denial of benefits. In a first-party bad faith claim, if a
finding of wrongful denial of benefits is a condition precedent to proceeding
with bad faith discovery, does the trial court err if it refuses to grant the
insurance company’s motion to bifurcate the issues for discovery? Do the same policy considerations that make it error for the trial
court to refuse a motion to bifurcate simultaneous bad faith and breach of
contract claims – avoiding undue prejudice to the insurance company,
avoiding jury confusion and promoting settlement – make it error to refuse a
motion to bifurcate the same two issues when the insured’s only claim
is bad faith? |
02/24/2010 CERT Affirmed
and Remanded 06/14/2011 2011
WI 41 |
2 |
-- |
|
2008AP2759-CR |
State v. Daniel H. Hanson Whether a driver
of a vehicle can be convicted of attempting to elude a law enforcement
officer under Wis. Stat. § 346.04(3) while on a cell phone with a 911 intake
dispatcher and driving to a police station. Whether an officer is a “victim” (See
State v. Haase, 2006 WI App 86, 293 |
02/08/2011 REVW Oral Arg 09/06/2011 |
2 |
11/17/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 146 ___ 792 N.W.2d 203 |
|
2008AP2765-CR |
State v. David D. Funk Whether a juror was subjectively and/or
objectively biased under the test set forth in State v. Delgado, 223
Wis. 2d 270, 588 N.W.2d 1 (1999). |
09/24/2010 REVW Reversed 07/08/2011 2011
WI 62 |
4 |
04/28/2010 Unpub |
|
2008AP2897 |
Link Snacks, Inc. v. Jay E. Link Under Wis. Stat. §
895.043(3), may the circuit court submit the issue of punitive damages to the
jury in the absence of evidence warranting a conclusion to a reasonable
certainty that the party against whom punitive damages may be awarded acted
maliciously toward the plaintiff or in an intentional disregard of the rights
of the plaintiff? Does the twenty-day
period for filing motions after verdict in Wis. Stat. § 805.16(1) begin to
run only upon the final disposition of the entire litigation? Under the
benefit-estoppel doctrine, does the plaintiff’s compliance with an
unconditional circuit court order requiring him to sell his shares in
defendant corporation entered over his object constitute a voluntary waiver
of his appellate rights? Does the
benefit-estoppel doctrine require dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal when
the issues raised in the appeal neither challenged nor depended upon the
reversal of the order under which he received the alleged “benefit” – that
is, the payment for hs shares at the price sought to be paid by defendant
corporation? Is the benefit-estoppel
doctrine inapplicable because the petitioner’s appeal could not have left him
in a worse position than the circuit court order under which he received
payment for his services? |
05/13/2010 REVW Affirmed
in part, reversed in part; remanded 07/14/2011 2011
WI 75 |
3 Washburn |
11/17/2009 Unpub |
|
2008AP3170 |
Lake Beulah Management
District v. DNR Does the legislative framework of Wis.
Stat. §§ 281.34 and 281.35 define the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR)
authority to regulate various categories of high capacity wells? Does the DNR’s general authority in Wis.
Stat. §§ 281.11 and 281.12 impose a duty upon the DNR to consider the impact
of high capacity wells on surface waters? In a proceeding under Wis. Stat. ch. 227, can documents that the
parties did not offer as part of the record but were in the possession of the
agency’s attorney in connection with a prior proceeding be deemed a part of
the record before the agency? |
11/05/2010 REVW Affirmed
in part; reversed in part 07/06/2011 2011
WI 54 |
2 Walworth |
07/28/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 85 787 N.W.2d 926 |
|
2009AP25-CR |
State v. Olu A. Rhodes Whether a criminal
defendant’s constitutional right to confront a witness in cross-examination
was infringed, and, if so, whether the infringement was harmless error. |
09/24/2010 REVW Reversed
and remanded 07/14/2011 2011
WI 73 |
1 |
08/25/2010 Unpub |
|
2009AP120 |
Does “acting together”
under Wis. Stat. § 82.21(2) require that the separate votes taken by two
governing bodies in deciding an application to lay out, alter, or discontinue
a public highway across municipal lines be counted in the aggregate as if the
boards voted as one board? Does the prescribed
method of certiorari review pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 82.21(2) preclude a
declaratory judgment action? Should the respondents
be equitably estopped from asserting any position inconsistent with their
prior actions and representations to the town boards which led up to the
joint meeting to consider the respondents’ application to discontinue the
town-line road? |
05/13/2010 REVW Reversed 07/19/2011 2011
WI 77 |
2 |
01/06/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 24 |
|
2009AP191 |
State ex rel. Stupar River
LLC v. Town of Board of Review Whether a tax
assessment was made in accordance with the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 70.32
(1). |
09/22/2010 REVW Affirmed 07/22/2011 2011
WI 82 |
4 |
01/27/2010 Unpub |
|
2009AP438 |
David Bushard
v. Steven A. Reisman Whether the dissolution of a business partnership was concluded in accordance with the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 178.15 and the terms of the partnership agreement. |
12/07/2010 REVW Affirmed 06/30/2011 2011
WI 51 |
3 Pierce |
07/28/2010 Unpub |
|
2009AP472 |
State v. David
J. Balliette Under what circumstances is an evidentiary hearing into the effectiveness of postconviction
counsel required where a postconviction motion under Wis. Stat. § 974.06
alleges that counsel was ineffective for not raising additional challenges to
the effectiveness of trial counsel on direct appellate review? Whether postconviction counsel was
ineffective under the “clearly stronger” standard referenced in Smith v.
Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 288, 120 S. Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000)
(defendant generally must demonstrate that an ignored issue is “clearly
stronger” than issues raised during the direct appeal to show that
postconviction counsel performed deficiently by not raising the issue). |
08/31/2010 REVW Reversed 07/19/2011 2011
WI 79 |
2 Winnebago |
03/10/2010 Unpub |
|
2009AP538 |
Steven T. Kilian v. Whether an
automobile manufacturer violated |
09/14/2010 REVW Reversed
and remanded 07/12/2011 2011
WI 65 |
2 |
04/26/2010 Unpub |
|
2009AP564 |
DeBoer Transportation, Inc.
v. Charles Swenson Does Wis. Stat. §
102.35 (3) require employers to provide injured workers special
accommodations for personal obligations not provided to uninjured workers? If Wis. Stat. § 102.35 (3) requires
employers to provide injured workers special accommodations for personal
obligations, what standard should the Commission apply when determining which
special accommodations should be granted? |
09/14/2010 REVW Affirmed 07/12/2011 2011
WI 64 |
4 Wood |
04/26/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 54 324 781 N.W.2d 709 |
|
2009AP608 |
John Adams, et al. v. State
of Does the
Livestock Facility Siting Law (Wis. Stat. § 93.90) prohibit a local
government from imposing conditions in a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a
Confined Animal Feedlot Operation (CAFO) for water quality monitoring and
compliance with state water quality standards? Was the
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection given the power by
the legislature to revoke local zoning authority to protect surface and
groundwater resources by omitting state water quality standards as a
“performance standard” in the administrative rule (Wis. Admin. Code § ATCP
51) for the siting and expansion of CAFOs? Is there a legal
distinction between a local zoning authority’s licensing or “siting” of a
CAFO and its “regulation” of the facility for compliance with state water
quality standards? Does the
Livestock Facility Siting Review Board have authority to remove conditions of
a CUP that requires compliance with state water quality standards and the
means to monitor compliance? Did the state siting
board exceed its authority in modifying the Town’s permit rather than
reversing it entirely? Even if a town
must satisfy the prerequisites in Wis. Stat. § 93.90(3)(ar) prior to imposing
conditions on a siting permit, may those conditions refer to and monitor
compliance with state standards? |
02/11/2011 REVW Oral Arg 09/07/2011 |
4 Rock |
07/28/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 88 327 |
|
2009AP639 |
Tracy J. McReath v. Timothy
J. McReath Whether a court
may double count the value of a divorcing professional’s “professional
goodwill” by first valuing the professional’s business practice, including
all of its associated goodwill, for property division purposes, and then
award maintenance based upon the professional’s earning capacity. |
12/07/2010 REVW Affirmed 07/12/2011 2011
WI 66 |
4 Sauk |
08/25/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 101 ___ 789 N.W.2d 89 |
|
2009AP694-CR |
State v. Rickey
R. Denson Should the
constitutional right of a criminal defendant not to testify and remain silent
at trial be recognized as a fundamental right that can only be waived
personally by a defendant with an on-the-record colloquy? (Cf., State v.
Jaramillo, 2009 WI App39, 316 Wis.2d 538, 765 N.W.2d 855). Should the only
appropriate remedy for failure to engage in an on-the-record colloquy
regarding the right not to testify at trial be a new trial? Should the
failure to engage in an on-the-record colloquy regarding the right not to
testify be subject to a harmless error analysis? |
12/08/2010 REVW Affirmed 07/13/2011 2011
WI 70 |
4 Rock |
Unpub |
|
2009AP775 |
E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. Whether |
09/24/2010 REVW Reversed 07/13/2011 2011
WI 71 |
3 |
06/30/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 76 325 785 N.W.2d 645 |
|
2009AP1007 |
BNP Paribas v. Olsen’s Mill,
Inc. Whether, under Wis. Stat. ch. 128
proceedings, a creditor’s security interest was correctly valued leaving the
balance of the creditor’s claim unsecured. (See Wisconsin Brick &
Block Corp. v. Vogel, 54 Wis. 2d 321, 326, 195 N.W.2d 664 (1972)). Whether a creditor’s security interest was
impermissibly destroyed in proceedings under Wis. Stat. ch. 128. |
10/27/2010 REVW Reversed
and remanded 07/08/2011 2011
WI 61 |
2 |
Unpub |
|
2009AP1209-CR |
State v. Brian T. St. Martin Whether the rule
regarding consent to search a shared dwelling in Georgia v. Randolph,
547 U.S. 103 (2006), which states that a warrantless search cannot be
justified when a physically present resident expressly refuses consent,
applies where the physically present resident is taken forcibly from his
residence by law enforcement but remains in close physical proximity to the
residence such that the refusal is made directly to law enforcement on the scene? Did the seizure
of illegal drugs occur as a result of a search warrant that was issued after
the initial search of the premises? Was the warrant
invalid because the affidavit accompanying the warrant application contained
inaccurate and misleading information? Did the trial
court err by “redacting” the affidavit after concluding that it contained
false statements? |
10/27/2010 CERT Affirmed 06/22/2011 2011
WI 44 |
2 |
-- |
|
2009AP1249-CR |
State v. Esteban M. Gonzalez Whether a pattern jury instruction confused
or mislead a jury such that the instructions violated a defendant’s due
process rights. Whether a trial court erred in its handling
of a jury’s questions during deliberations. Whether particular evidence constituted substantial facts sufficient
to corroborate the defendant’s alleged statements under the corroboration
rule (See State v. Bannister, 2007 WI 86, ¶26, 302 Wis. 2d 158, 734
N.W.2d 892). |
10/27/2010 REVW Reversed
and remanded 07/08/2011 2011
WI 63 |
1 |
08/25/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 104 |
|
2009AP1351-CR |
State v. Gregg B. Kandutsch May a report from
an electronic monitoring device be admitted into evidence without expert
testimony as to the scientific validity, accuracy, and reliability of the
device? Is a report
generated by an electronic monitoring device inadmissible hearsay? |
01/12/2011 REVW Affirmed 07/19/2011 2011
WI 78 |
3 |
Unpub |
|
2009AP1469 / 2009AP1470 |
Covenant Healthcare System,
Inc. v. City of Whether a
specific hospital outpatient facility is a tax exempt property under Wis.
Stat. § 70.11 (4m) (a) (2007 – 08). (See
St. Clare Hosp. of Monroe, Wis., Inc. v. City of Monroe, 209 Wis. 2d 364,
563 N.W.2d 170 (Ct. App. 1997) and St. Elizabeth Hospital, Inc. v. City of
Appleton, 141 Wis. 2d 787, 416 N.W.2d 620 (Ct. App. 1987)). |
12/07/2010 REVW Reversed 07/19/2011 2011
WI 80 |
1 |
09/29/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 125 |
|
2009AP1505-CR |
State v. Harry Thompson Whether
the failure to inform Thompson of the applicable mandatory minimum sentence
of 25 years of incarceration prior to trial violated Thompson's
constitutional due process rights. Whether
the complaint in this case was defective under Wis. Stat. § 970.02(1)(a)
because it did not state the applicable mandatory minimum sentence, therefore
entitling Thompson to a new trial. Whether the court of appeals exceeded its
authority and neglected to adhere to prior precedent when it decided issues
of ineffective assistance of counsel. |
REVW 05/25/2011 Oral Arg 10/07/2011 |
4 Wood |
Unpub |
|
2009AP1557 |
Department of Transportation Whether there is
a risk of double taking implicating due process violations in situations
where the state reduces the just compensation award by contamination
remediation estimates, while leaving open the potential for penalty
assessments against the property owner for remediation costs under other
regulations. |
03/16/2011 REVW Oral Arg 09/16/2011 |
1 |
10/27/2010 Pub 2010
WI App 138 329 792 N.W.2d 572 |
|
2009AP1558 |
John R. Steffens v. BlueCross
BlueShield of Is an employment based (ERISA) healthcare
plan entitled to reimbursement when a plan participant asserts in the course
of personal injury litigation that corrective surgery resulted from an
automobile accident and secures a settlement from the tortfeasor that
compensates the cost of surgery? Whether a settlement from a tortfeasor to
the plan participant can be construed to satisfy the third element of
judicial estoppel in subsequent litigation; namely, that the party to be
estopped has convinced the first court to adopt its position (See Harrison
v. LIRC, 187 Wis. 2d 491, 497, 523 N.W.2d 138 (Ct. App. 1994)). |
10/27/2010 REVW Reversed 07/08/2011 2011
WI 60 |
3 Outagamie |
09/29/2010 Unpub |
|
2009AP1579 |
State v. Edwin Clarence West Does 2005 |
01/11/2011 REVW Affirmed 07/26/2011 2011
WI 83 |
1 |
Unpub |
|
2009AP1643-CR |
State v. William Dinkins,
Sr. Whether a
soon-to-be-released prison inmate could be convicted for failing to comply
with the address reporting requirement of Wis. Stat. § 301.45 (2) (a) 5 when
he allegedly did not have an address at least 10 days prior to his release
from prison. |
03/16/2011 REVW Oral Arg 09/06/2011 |
4 Dodge |
12/14/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 163 |
|
2009AP2021 |
Lake Beulah Management
District v. Whether the Department of Natural Resources, or municipalities and other governmental entities having the same powers as municipalities, or any other entity, has the authority to consider adverse environmental impacts of high capacity wells with capacities to withdraw less that two million gallons per day. |
11/05/2010 REVW Affirmed 07/06/2011 2011
WI 55 |
2 Walworth |
09/29/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 127 |
|
2009AP2057-CR |
State v. David W. Stevens If
a suspect in custody initiates communication with the police after previously
invoking his Miranda right to consult with an attorney but has yet to
again waive his Miranda rights, do the police violate the demands of Miranda
by denying an attorney access to the suspect prior to the second waiver of
his Miranda rights? Does the Wisconsin supreme court's decision in Blum v. 1st Auto
& Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WI 78, 326 Wis. 2d 729, 786 N.W.2d 78, mean
that the court of appeals' decision in State v. Middleton, 135 Wis. 2d
297, 399 N.W.2d 917 (Ct. App. 1986) has no precedential value whatsoever
because that case was overruled in State v. Anson, 2005 WI 96, 282
Wis. 2d 629, 698 N.W.2d 776? |
05/24/2011 REVW Oral Arg 10/07/2011 |
2 Waukesha |
Unpub |
|
2009AP2176 |
Dawn L. Maxwell v. Does a policy of
insurance contain actual coverage for amounts due under a performance
contract and for lost salary and benefits, triggering a duty to indemnify for
such amounts? Does Wisconsin
law recognize an exception permitting the application of _stoppels and waiver
to create insurance coverage where none exists in the policy when, in the
absence of bad faith or a breach of the duty to defend, an insurer provides a
defense to an insured but does not issue a reservation of rights letter? If When the element
of waiver or equitable _stoppels are met as a matter of law, must the court
of appeals remand for the circuit court to exercise its discretion in
deciding whether to apply the doctrines? If |
02/08/2011 REVW Oral Arg 09/14/2011 |
2 |
09/29/2010 Pub 2010
WI App 128 329 791 N.W.2d 195 |
|
2009AP2315 |
Joyce Affeldt v. What is the distinction between a
“recorded” and an “unrecorded” highway under the newly enacted Wis. Stat. ch.
82? Whether evidence of ancient fences, trees
and buildings within an alleged right-of-way rebuts the presumption of a
four-rod (66 feet) width accorded to an unrecorded highway under Wis. Stat. §
82.31. Whether retroactive application of the four-rod statutory presumption
to an unrecorded highway existing before the enactment of the statute
violates the federal and state constitutional “takings” clauses. |
10/27/2010 REVW Reversed
and remanded 07/06/2011 2011
WI 56 |
2 |
08/25/2010 Unpub |
|
2009AP2385 |
Todd Olson v. Robert Farrar What is the scope
of review when an insurer provides its insured with an initial defense
pursuant to a reservation of rights, moves to intervene, bifurcate and stay
the coverage issues from the issues on the merits, and seeks a judicial
declaration that the insurer owes no duty to defend nor indemnify? Whether the
property damage resulted from “a utility, boat, camp or mobile home trailer”
and the “trailer” was attached to a motor vehicle. Whether coverage
is precluded by an exclusion in the policy concerning property used by or in
the care of the insured. |
04/12/2011 REVW Oral Arg 10/06/2011 |
4 Monroe |
12/14/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 165 330 Wis. 2d 611 794 N.W.2d 245 |
|
2009AP2422-CR |
State v. David W. Domke Whether
defendant’s counsel performed deficiently at trial under Strickland v. Did a defendant
suffer prejudice under Strickland from the cumulative effect of trial
counsel’s decision to call the victim’s mother as a witness and his failure
to seek exclusion of a therapist’s testimony under |
02/08/2011 REVW Oral Arg 09/14/2011 |
3 Oconto |
Unpub |
|
2009AP2433-FT |
Patrick A. Topolski v.
Ellen J. Topolski Whether an
ex-spouse’s receipt of benefits under a pension plan constitutes retirement
benefits, thereby triggering the property division of a divorce judgment, or
disability benefits which do not implicate the property division. |
10/27/2010 REVW Modified
and affirmed 07/08/2011 2011
WI 59 |
2 |
Unpub |
|
2009AP2549 |
Robert Johnson v. Cintas
Corporation Whether the
default judgment was void because the summons and complaint named the wrong
corporate defendant, meaning personal jurisdiction was never obtained over
the correct corporate entity. |
05/25/2011 REVW |
2 Kenosha |
01/31/2011 Pub 2011 WI App 5 331 Wis. 2d 51 794 N.W.2d 475 |
|
2009AP2768 |
Joel Hirschhorn v.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company Does a standard pollution exclusion in a homeowner’s insurance policy
apply to exclude coverage for a loss caused by an odor emanating from an
accumulation of bat guano so severe the house needed to be demolished? Does the standard pollution exclusion in a
homeowner’s insurance policy apply to pollutants that result from natural
processes or is the exclusion limited to industrial waste? |
03/16/2011 REVW Oral Arg 10/05/2011 |
3 |
11/17/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 154 330 792 N.W.2d 639 |
|
2009AP2795 |
Jaymie A. Gister, et al. v.
American Family Mutual Ins. Whether a
charitable hospital that is legally required to provide emergency medical
services to all patients, including the uninsured, may enforce a hospital
lien (Wis. Stat. § 779.80) on a Medicaid recipient’s personal injury
settlement from the tortfeasor as an alternative to billing Medicaid. Whether the hospital is forbidden from
billing the patient because the patient was eligible for public medical
assistance (See Wis. Stat. § 49.49 (3m)) and, therefore, the patient
does not owe a debt to the hospital that could be subject to a lien under
Wis. Stat. § 779.80. |
03/16/2011 REVW Oral Arg 10/05/2011 |
4 Dane |
12/14/2010 Unpub |
|
2009AP2845-W |
Madison Metro. School Dist.
v. Circuit Court for Dane County Whether a circuit court, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 120.12(18) (school district has a duty to coordinate and provide continuity of educational programming for pupils receiving education services as the result of a court order under § 938.34(7d)) and § 938.45 (court may take certain actions if the district contributed to delinquency of minor) has the authority to craft an order which would override a school district’s prior determination to expel a juvenile under § 120.13(1)©1. |
10/27/2010 REVW Affirmed 07/14/2011 2011
WI 72 |
4 Dane |
Unpub |
|
2009AP2907-CR |
State v. Joseph J. Spaeth Whether compelled
incriminating statements made to a probation agent as part of a standard
requirement of probation under Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 328.04(2)(w) may be
considered a “legitimate source wholly independent of compelled testimony”
under Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972). |
02/08/2011 CERT Oral Arg 09/14/2011 |
2 Winnebago |
|
|
2009AP2934-CR |
State v. Deandre A. Buchanan Under the
totality of the circumstances, did the law enforcement officer have an
objectively reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed and dangerous? Did the trial court err in concluding that
contraband found in the defendant’s vehicle was in “plain view?” |
01/11/2011 REVW Affirmed 06/29/2011 2011
WI 49 |
3 Trempealeau |
Unpub |
|
2009AP3029 |
Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Orion Logistics,
LLC Whether Wis.
Stat. § 816.03 (b) permits a supplemental proceeding against an entity which
is neither a party to the action nor a judgment debtor. Whether the court has personal jurisdiction
over the entity which is neither a party to the action nor a judgment debtor. |
04/12/2011 REVW Oral Arg 10/07/2011 |
3 Outagamie |
01/31/2011 Pub 2011 WI App 9 ___ Wis. 2d ___ 794 N.W.2d 272 |
|
2009AP3075 |
State v. Basil E. Ryan, Jr. Can a defendant be
found guilty under the forfeiture statutes on the grounds of judicial
estoppel where the defendant claims he made no statement to a prior court? Did the undisputed
facts on the record establish that if judicial estoppel had not been applied,
the defendant neither owned nor controlled the barge that sunk in a navigable
waterway in order to be liable under the forfeiture statutes for violations
of Wis. Stat. ch. 30? If judicial estoppel
had not been applied, is there a dispute as to material fact[s] that
precludes summary judgment as to whether the defendant owned or controlled
the barge to be liable under the forfeiture statutes? Can the summary judgment procedure be employed to find a defendant
liable under the forfeiture statues for violations of Wis. Stat. ch. 30? |
05/24/2011 REVW |
1 Milwaukee |
02/16/2011 Pub 2011 WI App 21 331 Wis. 2d 491 796 N.W.2d 23 |
|
2010AP177 |
Suzanne R. May v. Michael T.
May Whether an
agreement to an unmodifiable child support floor for 33 months violates
public policy (Cf. Jalovec v. Jalovec, 2007 WI App 206, 305
Wis. 2d 467, 739 N.W.2d 834 and Frisch v. Henrichs, 2007 WI 102, ¶74
n.23, 304 Wis. 2d 1, 736 N.W.2d 85). |
04/13/2011 CERT Oral Arg 10/06/2011 |
4 Dane |
-- |
|
*2010AP232-AC |
State v. Abbott Laboratories,
et al. Was the state entitled to a jury trial under Wis.
Stat. §§ 100.18 and 49.49? Was the jury required to speculate in determining
damages? Was the trial court within its authority to
reduce the number of Wis. Stat. § 49.49 (4m) (a) 2. violations found by the
jury? |
06/15/2011 CERT |
4 Dane |
-- |
|
*2010AP346-CR |
State v. Devin W. Felix Under Wis. Const. art. I, § 11, which case
governs an attenuation analysis following an in-home warrantless arrest in an
alleged violation of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980): the rule
announced in New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990) or the
three-factor test of Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)? Assuming that Brown’s attenuation analysis applies, were the
defendant’s statements to police at the station, the buccal swabs he
voluntarily provided, and the clothes police obtained from the defendant at
the county jail suppressible as fruits of his warrantless in-home arrest? |
06/16/2011 REVW |
3 Marathon |
Unpub |
|
2010AP355 |
Heritage Farms,
Inc., et al. v. Markel Insurance Company, et al. Whether Wis. Stat. § 26.21 (1) creates a presumptive double damage award once there is a finding that damage occurred through willfulness, malice or negligence. |
04/12/2011 REVW |
4 Portage |
01/31/2011 Pub 2011 WI App 12 ___ Wis. 2d ___ 793 N.W.2d 896 |
|
2010AP387-CR |
In the Matter of Sanctions
Imposed in State v. Gregory K. Nielsen Does the court of
appeals’ practice of summarily imposing monetary sanctions in its written
decisions violate due process? Does the court of
appeals’ practice of summarily imposing monetary sanctions in its written
decisions for perceived attorney professional ethics infractions violate due
process and impermissibly supplant procedures established by the supreme
court for resolving professional ethics issues? Is Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19 (2) Appendix,
unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied for purposes of imposing
monetary sanctions? |
04/12/2011 REVW Oral Arg 10/05/2011 |
2 Racine |
Unpub |
|
2010AP445-CR |
State v. Sharon A. Sellhausen Must a circuit
court judge sua sponte remove an immediate family member from a panel
of potential jurors? If a circuit court judge does not sua
sponte remove an immediate family member from a panel of potential
jurors, is the defendant entitled to a new trial if the family member did not
sit on the jury but the defendant exercised a peremptory strike to remove the
family member? |
02/08/2011 REVW Oral Arg 09/07/2011 |
2 |
12/14/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 175 |
|
2010AP772-CR |
State v. Carl L. Dowdy Do circuit courts have authority under Wis. Stat. § 973.09 (3) (a) to
reduce the length of probation? Do circuit courts have inherent authority to reduce the length of
probation? If a circuit
court has inherent authority to reduce the length of probation, what standard
of review applies? |
03/16/2011 REVW Oral Arg 09/07/2011 |
1 |
11/17/2010 Pub 2010 WI App 158 ___ 792 N.W.2d 230 |
|
2010AP826 |
Marco A. Marquez v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC What is the proper burden of proof to be applied to an allegation of intentional bad faith on the part of a consumer in a lemon law action under Wis. Stat. § 218.0171, an ordinary burden of proof or a middle burden of proof? |
05/24/2011 CERT |
2 Waukesha |
-- |
|
2010AP1113-CR |
State v. Jason E. Goss Whether Wis. Stat.
§ 343.303, which carries a prohibited alcohol concentration of 0.02%, applies
to subject a motorist with four prior OWI convictions to a preliminary breath
screening test based on a lower level of evidence supporting probable cause. |
04/12/2011 REVW Oral Arg 10/06/2011 |
3 Eau Claire |
Unpub |
|
2010AP1142 |
State v. Glen D. Nordberg Whether the court
of appeals' decision in State v. Rachel, 2010 WI App 60, 324 Wis. 2d 441, 782
N.W.2d 443, erroneously places the burden of persuasion on the committed
patient to satisfy the criteria in Wis. Stat. § 980.08(4)(cg) for
granting supervised release from a Chapter 980 commitment. Whether requiring a committed individual to
satisfy the criteria for supervised release under Wis. Stat. § 980.08(4)(cg)
by clear and convincing evidence is too onerous a burden. |
03/18/2011 BYPA Affirmed 07/26/2011 2011
WI 84 |
4 |
-- |
|
2010AP1937-OA |
Whether |
11/30/2010 ORIG Oral Arg 09/06/2011 |
4 Dane |
-- |
|
*2010AP2273-CR |
State v. Jon Anthony Soto Whether a defendant’s
statutory right to be physically present during the plea hearing was violated
when the court conducted the hearing through video teleconferencing. Whether the issue was
properly preserved for appeal. |
06/15/2011 CERT |
3 Tremp. |
-- |