State’s high court accepts 12 new cases

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court announced plans Friday to weigh in on cases involving time limits on filing medical-malpractice claims, breach of the duty to defend clients and the state’s recreational immunity statute.

In all, the justices will accept 12 new cases while rejecting 86 others. The 12 the court will review include a Milwaukee County case involving time limits for filing medical-malpractice claims, another Milwaukee County case involving an alleged breach of duty to defend a client and a Dodge County case involving the state’s recreational immunity statute.

• In State v. Sculla, out of Jefferson County, the court will consider when an evidentiary hearing is required. The justices will also review three previous cases — State v. Bentley, State v. Straszkowski, and State v. Frey — to see if they resulted in conflicting holdings.

• In State v. Salinas, out of Brown County, the court will consider the circumstances under which crimes can be joined in one trial, as well as examine Wisconsin statute 971.12 (1).

• In Marks v. Houston Cas. Co., out of Milwaukee County, the justices will examine how a claim of breach of duty to defend a client is evaluated and whether the Court of Appeals may have reshaped one of its own precedents.

• Sorenson v. Batchelder, from Milwaukee County, will call for an interpretation of the service requirements involving against the state filed under statute 893.82 and at the requirement that service “shall be served upon the attorney general at his or her office in the Capitol by certified mail.”

• In John Doe 56 v. Mayo Clinic Health System-EC, from Eau Claire County, the court will look at the time limits on filing medical-malpractice claims against a pediatrician who is accused of assaulting minor patients who did not then know that the examinations they were undergoing were not medical in nature.

• In Roberts v. T.H.E. Ins., from Dodge County, the court will examine the scope of protections provided under Wis. Stat. § 895.52, the state’s recreational immunity statute. The case involves whether protections that apply to landowners under the statute may also apply to a non-landowner business that offers recreational activities on someone else’s property.

• In Attic Angel Prairie Point v. city of Madison, from Dane County, the court will examine whether case law developed to apply to a particular statute applies to a revised and amended version of the statute.

• In State v. Lagrone, out of Milwaukee County, the justices will look at whether a trial court erred by not conducting a colloquy during the second phase of a proceeding held to determine if someone was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. The colloquy would have been used to ascertain whether the defendant was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waiving his right to testify.

• In Fontana Builders v. Assurance Co. of America, out of Walworth County, the court will consider the interpretation of language in an insurance policy to determine what coverage may apply after a fire substantially damaged a house that was under construction in Fontana. The petitioners include a builder and a banker who appealed to the Supreme Court.

• In State v. Tourville, out of Polk County, the justices will consider two issues stemming from criminal charges that were filed against Patrick Tourville. The issues are: Whether the state breached a plea agreement with Tourville by recommending consecutive sentences, and whether there was a sufficient factual basis to accept his guilty plea to theft when Tourvile took no part in the taking and carrying away of property from its owner.

• In Prince Corporation v. Vandenberg, out of Brown County, the court will consider a complicated garnishment proceeding that arose when four tenants in common sought to sell their property and it happened that one of the owners had numerous unpaid judgments and tax liens.

• In State v. Jackson, from Outagamie County, the justices will consider the inevitable discovery doctrine, which provides “evidence obtained during a search which is tainted by some illegal act may be admissible if the tainted evidence would have been inevitably discovered by lawful means.” Follow @TDR_WLJDan