Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

State high court picks up 5 new cases

By: Joe Yovino, [email protected]//November 29, 2013//

State high court picks up 5 new cases

By: Joe Yovino, [email protected]//November 29, 2013//

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday voted to accept five new cases and denied review of 13 others.

• In State v. Brown, the Fourth Amendment case examines the legality of a traffic stop that started as a possible defective tail light violation, and ultimately resulted in charges of felon in possession of a firearm against Antonio D. Brown.

The Supreme Court will review whether the Court of Appeals properly concluded that a tail lamp that is 66-percent functional is in “good working order” as required under Wis. Stat. § 347.13(1), and thus cannot serve as a basis for an officer’s probable cause to stop the vehicle.

• In State v. Nellessen, the court will decide whether a criminal defendant who wants to compel the state to disclose the identity of an informer must make a preliminary showing that the informer could possibly give specifically delineated testimony that could create a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt by supporting the asserted theory of defense.

• In State Farm v. Hague Quality Water, the case involves a dispute over financial responsibility for property damage caused when a water softener that was installed by a landlord failed at a rental property. The Supreme Court will examine the economic loss doctrine and whether tort claims are precluded because – as determined by the Court of Appeals – the water softener is not part of an integrated system with the drywall, flooring, and woodwork that was damaged.

• Casey v. Smith involves a dispute between two insurers over coverage for an accident that occurred while a semi-truck was being driven to the shop to have the front grille and an oil filler tube replaced. The Supreme Court will examine what is known in insurance circles as a “truckmen’s endorsement.” A resolution in the case could depend, at least in part, on a determination of whether the truck was being driven for business purposes on behalf of a freight company at the time of the accident or not.

• County of Grant v. Vogt will look at whether an officer who approaches a vehicle without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a violation of the law has been committed, and then knocks on the window and motions for the driver to roll down his window, unreasonably seizes the driver.

The court denied review of:

• Anderson v. Hebert
• Payday Loan Store v. Krueger/Williams
• Grube v. Akkeren
• State v. Nack
• State v. Sanders
• City of S. Milwaukee v. Kester
• State v. Roy W.
• Chase Home Finance v. Scarpace
• Whiteaker v. Black
• State v. Gimino
• Riley v. Extendicare
• Dierks v. Jensen
• State v. Wolff


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

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

Case Digests

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests