Supreme Court hears frivolousness case

Listen to this article

The state Supreme Court will hold oral arguments Tuesday on a case looking at the process the Wisconsin Court of Appeals should follow when reviewing a circuit court’s finding of frivolousness.

According to the court, the case, Donohoo v. Action Wisconsin Inc., et al. (06AP396), stems from a defamation suit brought by Grant E. Storm. The Louisiana pastor and opponent of gay rights spoke in Milwaukee in October 2003. The following February he filed a defamation suit against Action Wisconsin, Inc., and Christopher Ott for a press release indicating that Storm, in his speech, had advocated killing gays.

The trial judge granted summary judgment and dismissed the defamation case, stating that attorney James Donohoo, representing Storm, failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the press release was false and malicious.

The circuit court denied a motion for reconsideration; however, it granted a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $85,000.

Last May, the court of appeals found that although the trial judge granted summary judgment and dismissed the defamation case against Action Wisconsin and Ott, was not frivolous for bringing or continuing the case.

The Supreme Court could clarify the court of appeals’ standard of review in deciding frivolousness and the appropriate analysis of “actual malice.”

Oral arguments will begin at 9:45 a.m., Tuesday, Jan. 15, in the Wisconsin Capitol. Audio from that session can be heard at here.

Two other oral arguments will take place on Tuesday. At 10:45, the Supreme Court will take up Racine Co. v. Int’l. Assn. of Machinests and Aerospace Workers, 06AP964. A decision by the Supreme Court could determine if Racine County violated the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between it and the association when the county laid off social workers.

Finally, at 1:30 p.m., the justices will hear arguments in Hefty v. Strickhouser, 06AP1094 and 06AP1956. The court will review a judge’s authority to issue a scheduling order that deviates from standard deadlines provided by Wis. Stat. Sec. 802.08(2). The case arises from a dispute between a farmer and an animal nutrition consultant.

For more information on any of these cases, visit the Supreme Court’s Web site.