State’s top court to take 12 cases

Listen to this article

The state Supreme Court accepted 12 cases for review Wednesday.

They are:

1. State v. Scull, which asks whether a trial court erred in denying defendant Gary Monroe Scull’s motion to suppress evidence found by police after they brought a drug-sniffing dog to the front door of his residence without a warrant or probable cause.

2. State v. Moore, which examines issues related to the custodial interrogation of juveniles and the criteria for evaluating the voluntariness of a juvenile confession.

3. State v. Delebreau, which examines whether a Miranda waiver is sufficient to waive a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel after a defendant has been charged and is represented by counsel.

4. Sohn Manufacturing v. LIRC, which examines several issues arising from a worker’s compensation claim.

5. Stoker v. Milwaukee Co., which examines issues related to changes in the Milwaukee County retiree pension benefit formula.

6. State v. Alger, and 7. State v. Knipfer, which will examine similar issues related to whether a ch. 980 petition for discharge, filed after the effective date of Wisconsin’s adoption of the Daubert reliability standard for expert testimony, should be considered a new “action” (to which the Daubert standard would apply) or a continuation of the existing case that began when the original ch. 980 petition was filed.

8. State v. Harrison, which examines issues related to judicial substitution arising from the conviction of defendant Richard Harrison for burglary, theft, and resisting an officer.

9. Bank of New York v. Carson, which examines whether a statute requires a plaintiff in a foreclosure action to sell subject property “without delay” upon the expiration of the redemption period or merely permit a plaintiff to sell the subject property upon the expiration of the redemption period.

10. State v. Hemp, which examines the manner in which expunction of a court record of a conviction is accomplished. The underlying conviction is not at issue.

11. Runzheimer International v. Friedlen, a certification by the District I Court of Appeals which examines one main issue: Is consideration in addition to continued employment required to support a covenant not to compete entered into by an existing at-will employee?

12. State v. Alexander, which examines whether the Court of Appeals may choose to review a case under an ineffective assistance of counsel analysis, even though that claim was not raised below or in the parties’ appellate briefs.

The court on Wednesday also denied review to 140 cases. Follow @eheisigWLJ