Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Wis. Supreme Court accepts five new cases, denies 51

By: Caley Clinton, [email protected]//January 30, 2013//

Wis. Supreme Court accepts five new cases, denies 51

By: Caley Clinton, [email protected]//January 30, 2013//

Listen to this article

By SCOTT BAUER
Associated Press

Wisconsin justices voted this week to accept five new cases, concerning everything from property disputes to right to counsel.

• In State v. Deadwiller, 2010AP2363-64-CR, the court will consider whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S.___, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) is binding upon Wisconsin courts. The Supreme Court is asked to review whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming two convictions against Richard Deadwiller for second-degree sexual assault with the use of force. The case originated in Milwaukee County.

• In Waller v. American Transmission Co., 2012AP805/840, Wisconsin justices will debate two prior Court of Appeals’ decisions and three circuit court decisions arising from a dispute over the condemnation of property for the location of an electrical transmission line project in Walworth County. Specifically, the court will examine Wis. Stat. § 32.06(3m), the uneconomic remnant statute.

• In Tufail v. Midwest Hospitality, 2011AP1451, the court will consider a question of contract interpretation by considering a Court of Appeals’ decision regarding a lease dispute between a property owner and restaurant franchisee owner in Milwaukee.

• In State v. Edler, 2011AP2916-CR, the justices will take a look at a District II Court of Appeals decision that examines an arson suspect’s right to counsel and whether Wisconsin law affords a different level of protection under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) warnings than has developed under federal case law. The case originated in Sheboygan County.

• In Dane County v. Sheila W., 2012AP500, the court will review a circuit court order appointing a temporary guardian for a teenage minor to consent to certain medical treatment over the objections of the minor and the minor’s parents.

The court also declined to review 51 cases.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests