Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

High court to take on 12 new cases

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//April 29, 2016//

High court to take on 12 new cases

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//April 29, 2016//

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has accepted 12 new cases.

The justices will review cases from Milwaukee, Kenosha, Waupaca, Waukesha, Rock, Walworth, Dane Fond du Lac and Sauk counties, according to a news release. The justices voted to deny review of 102 other cases from around the state.

The high court on Friday voted to grant review of the following cases:

  • Moya v. Healthport Technologies LLC examines whether state law exempts personal injury lawyers from having to pay certain health-record fees when the attorney orders the records with their client’s written permission.
  • State v. Allen involves whether the trial court violated state law when it considered a defendant’s expunged record and whether Allen’s counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court’s consideration of the expunged records.
  • Smith v. Anderson is a dispute over insurance coverage stemming from a homebuyer’s allegations that a seller misrepresented the condition of the home and repairs made to it.
  • State v. Harris involves whether a statement from a person is considered an interrogation under the terms of the U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona.
  • Garza v. ATC stems from a dispute between a couple and American Transmission Co. over whether ATC has easement over their property.
  • State v. Mattox is a case a court of appeals asked the high court to review. The case involves whether a defendant’s constitutional rights were violated when the state introduced at trial a toxicology report with a medical examiner’s testimony based on the report. The author of the report did not testify and the defendant could not examine the report.
  • Pulera v. Town of Richmond, and Town of Johnston consolidates two cases involving how deadlines are determined for objecting to town highway projects. A court of appeals had asked the court to weigh in on the two consolidated cases.
  • State v. Howes, which the District 4 Court of Appeals asked the court to review, involves whether drawing blood from an unconscious suspect violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
  • McKee Family I LLC v. City of Fitchburg is a dispute over whether developers planning to build an apartment complex had a vested right before the city rezoned the property and whether that rezoning is an unconstitutional taking.
  • State v. Zamzow is a criminal case in which the justices will decide whether the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment applies at a pretrial suppression hearing.
  • State v. Scruggs examines the constitutionality of retroactively applying a statute that makes a $250 surcharge mandatory when a DNA sample is taken.
  • State v. Kozel is a drunken driving case in which the justices will consider whether, among other issues, a defendant can suppress the results of a blood test under state statute.

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests