State’s high court to take up 6 more cases

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently announced it had granted six petitions for review in cases out of Winnebago, Milwaukee, Door, Chippewa and Brown counties.

Of those cases, one stems from a criminal matter, three involve mental-commitment proceedings and two arise from civil disputes.

The court denied granting review in 64 other cases, according to Friday’s announcement.

The justices agreed to take on the following cases:

CED Properties LLC v. City of Oshkosh: The case out of Winnebago County involves a dispute between the city of Oshkosh and property owner CED Properties LLC over a special assessment the city imposed on one of CED’s properties that was affected by the construction of a roundabout. The high court is expected to determine whether a special assessment may be imposed for a benefit that adds no monetary value to a property and whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the city.

Winnebago County v. J.M.: The justices in this case will review whether J.M. was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney let him wear prison clothes during his commitment trial and failed to remedy the issue by asking the judge for a jury instruction.

State v. Hendricks: This criminal case out of Milwaukee County stems from Shannon Hendricks’ conviction for child enticement; he was sentenced to three years’ confinement and four years of extended supervision. Hendricks is asking the court to determine whether state statute and precedent require someone pleading guilty to child enticement to understand the meaning of “sexual contact.”

Horizon Bank, National Association v. Marshalls Point Retreat LLC: The case out of Door County stems from a foreclosure involving a $5 million loan Horizon Bank loaned to Marshalls Point Retreat LLC. The loan was secured by a mortgage on a property in Sister Bay, which was sold for $2.25 million to Horizon, which was the only bidder at the sale. At issue in the case is whether a trial court must determine the amount to be credit against a guarantor’s obligation before confirming a sheriff’s sale and if so, whether a guarantor has a due process right to present evidence of the property’s fair value.

State v. Hager: This appeal out of Chippewa County asks the justices to examine recent amendments to the standards by which trial courts determine whether a petitioner who has been committed under Chapter 980 will get a discharge trial.

The 2013 amendments to Chapter 980 included that a trial court must deny a petition without a hearing unless the petition alleges facts supported by the record “from which the court or jury would likely conclude” a person’s condition had changed since initial commitment and the person should no longer be committed.

The high court in this case is expected to determine whether courts can compare new evidence with evidence in the record in deciding whether a patient has met the stricter standard required by the recent amendments and should be granted a discharge trial.

State v. Carter: Like the previous case, this case out of Brown County involves the same amendments to Chapter 980 involving granting petitions for discharge. The issues in this case include whether Howard Carter, who was civilly committed in 2009 and later petitioned for discharge from 2010 to 2012, should have been granted a trial on his petition for discharge and whether the changes made to the standards in 2013 were unconstitutional because they restrict access to the courts to those trying to end their commitment. Follow @erikastrebel