Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Legal News / Wis. Supreme Court accepts 8 new cases, denies 80

Wis. Supreme Court accepts 8 new cases, denies 80

The Wisconsin Supreme Court announced Wednesday it will hear eight new cases.

Three cases stem from business and employment disputes.

• Beidel v. Sideline Software entails litigation between former shareholders of a closely held company. The case, from Milwaukee County, raises a number of questions implicating the “constructive termination” doctrine.

• In Park Bank v. Westburg, from Walworth County, the court will review the financial relationships between limited liability entities and their shareholders in the context of a foreclosure action.

• In Horak v. Building Services Ind. Sales Co., an asbestos case from Milwaukee County, the court is set to determine whether invoices that are more than 20 years old are admissible evidence under the ancient-document exception to the hearsay rule.

The justices also agreed to review two cases involving insurance.

• In Xcel Energy Services v. LIRC, from Chippewa County, the state’s high court will review the statutory definition of “adverse party” in the context of a worker’s compensation claim.

• The other insurance case, Veto v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., is from Dane County. In that case the court will examine whether American Family Mutual Insurance had authority to reduce payment of a claim by subtracting the amount a policyholder had received from a separate insurer’s payment.

Two of the cases are criminal in nature.

• State v. Burton, out of Milwaukee County, asks the court to consider whether a circuit court judge must notify defendants who plead guilty that they have a right to a jury determination of mental disease or defect.

• In State v. Travis, from Kenosha County, the court will look at what happens when a sentencing judge relies on inaccurate information.

A certification from the state court of appeals also was accepted.

• Rosecky v. Schissel, from Columbia County, considers whether a surrogacy agreement that a circuit court found flawed should be enforced.

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday also denied review of 80 cases.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*