The state Supreme Court announced Friday that it has accepted nine cases for review.
- State v. Wilson, which asks whether a man convicted of homicide more than 20 years ago was denied a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense because the circuit court refused to allow him to introduce evidence that someone else killed the victim.
- Augsburger v. Homestead Mutual Insurance Co., which involves a dispute over liability for a dog bite. The justices will debate whether a man who owned the property where the dog bite occurred could be held liable, even though he did not live on the property, and was not there when the dog bite occurred.
- State v. Tullberg, which deals with whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw from a man police suspected of driving drunk and being involved in a fatal accident.
- Wis. Fed. of Nurses and Health Professionals v. Milwaukee Co., which involves a dispute over whether union members had a vested benefit contract that required the county to reimburse their Medicare Part B premiums when they retire from county employment, even though they were not yet retired when the county eliminated that benefit.
- State v. Foster, which examines several issues arising from a drunken driving arrest, including whether a warrantless blood draw under the circumstances presented here is constitutional in light of Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S., 2013 WL 1628934 (2013).
- State v. Kennedy, which deals with constitutional issues arising from the arrest and conviction of Alvernest Kennedy on charges of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle. The court will review whether field sobriety tests were necessary to establish probable cause to arrest Kennedy for OWI and whether evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless blood draw was erroneously admitted in violation of Kennedy’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
- State v. Ramon G. Gonzalez, which examines whether ordering a defendant to open his mouth and reveal his platinum teeth to the jury violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
- State v. Dillard, which deals with whether Myron Dillard, a defendant in an armed robbery case, may withdraw his plea after discovering that a potential penalty enhancer that was dropped as part of a plea agreement could not have applied to his situation anyway.
- 118th Street Kenosha, LLC v. DOT, which involves a dispute over the loss of a business’s driveway entrance following a road construction project near the intersection of I-94 and state Highway 50 in Kenosha, and whether the business owner’s method of attempting to recover damages is the appropriate legal remedy under the circumstances.
The court also announced Friday that it has denied review of 92 cases.
[follow id=”eheisigWLJ” size=”large” count=”true”]