Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

High court to take on 12 new cases

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//January 21, 2016//

High court to take on 12 new cases

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//January 21, 2016//

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will take on 12 new cases this term from eight different counties.

The cases the justices agreed to take, according to a news release, are from Dane, Racine, Grant, Dodge, Milwaukee, Marathon, Waukesha, Eau Claire and La Crosse counties; the court chose not to hear 86 other cases.

The justices will hear the following cases:

  • Blake v. Jossart, a case about a Racine County woman whose child care provider license was revoked in 2010 because of a misdemeanor welfare fraud charge that she pleaded guilty to in 1986. She alleges the revocation was unconstitutional.
  • Singh v. Kemper involves a prisoner who is arguing that a recent change to the statutes governing the role of sentencing courts in reviewing prisoners’ positive adjustment time is unconstitutional.
  • In Seifert v. Balink, the justices will review the state’s Daubert standards for reviewing and admitting expert testimony in a medical malpractice case involving a baby whose arm was permanently injured during delivery.
  • State v. McKellips is the case of a high school basketball coach convicted of “using a a computerized communication system to facilitate a sex crime.” When his victim’s mother took away her cellphone, he bought her a prepaid phone. The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial because it ruled a phone is not a “computerized communication system.”  The state appealed.
  • In State v. Salas Gayton, the justices will consider whether immigration status is a factor a court can take into account for sentencing.
  • In Milwaukee Police Association v. City of Milwaukee, the court will consider whether the states’ home rule amendment trumps a recently enacted statute preventing municipalities from imposing residency requirements on their employees.
  • Dufour v. Progressive Classic Insurance Co. is an insurance case involving a motorcycle accident and whether an insurance company must reimburse one of the drivers in the accident.
  • The justices in State v. Moustakis will consider issues presented by newspaper’s public records request to the Vilas County District Attorney’s Office.
  • In State v. Loomis, the court will consider whether a court can rely on an assessment called COMPAS in sentencing.
  • Water Well Solutions Service Group v. Consolidated Ins. Co. will consider issues arising from a dispute over insurance coverage involving a municipal well in Waukesha.
  • In State v. Booth, a bypass of the Court of Appeals, the justices will consider, among other things, whether someone can still be charged with a criminal OWI if that person has already been issued a civil citation for the same offense.
  • The court in Clark v. American Cyanamid Co. will consider whether a state statute preventing the plaintiff from suing manufacturers of white lead carbonate unconstitutionally deprives the plaintiff of a property right.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests