State Supreme Court accepts 13 cases for review

Listen to this article

The state Supreme Court announced Monday that it has accepted 13 cases for review.

The cases are:

• Holman v. Harvey, which examines the “known and compelling danger” exception to the governmental immunity doctrine under state law.

• Oneida Seven Generations Corp. v. City of Green Bay, which involves a dispute over the City Council of Green Bay’s revocation of a conditional-use permit for a subsidiary of the Oneida tribe, Oneida Seven Generations Corp., to operate a waste-to-energy facility that would use pyrolysis to vaporize waste with intense heat.

• State v. Herrmann, where the justices will decide whether the sentencing court erroneously exercised its discretion and violated the defendant’s due process rights when it allegedly exhibited bias in sentencing him.

• Aguilar v. Husco Int’l Inc., a labor law case where the court will review questions arising from a dispute over how break times are to treated under the terms of a faulty contract provision and in context of state and federal labor laws.

• State v. Kucharski, which will look at the double homicide case involving Corey Kucharski, who said voices told him to fatally shoot his parents, Ralph and Pamela Kucharski.

The Supreme Court reviews a Court of Appeals’ decision reversing a judgment convicting the defendant, and the review will examine the standards for granting a new trial in the interest of justice.

• State v. Hurley, a case that examines the standards courts should use in evaluating due process notice challenges to complaints that allege the crime of repeated sexual assault of a child.

• State v. Kempainen, which examines whether a trial court must apply the first three factors of State v. Fawcett to determine whether a complaint is sufficiently definite in a case involving delayed allegations of sexual assault.

• State v. Blatterman, which looks at the community care doctrine and the probable cause necessary to arrest a person for a prohibited blood-alcohol concentration violation when the threshold level is the 0.02-percent standard.

• Acuity v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., a dispute between two insurance companies, Acuity and Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., about whether they shared a duty to defend and indemnify their respective insurer, Dorner Inc., in four consolidated lawsuits.

• Mary E.B. v. Cecil M., a termination of parental rights case examines that examines Section 48.415(6), which sets forth a non-exclusive list of factors a court may consider in evaluating whether a person has had a substantial parental relationship with the child.

• State v. Daniel, which examines the correct burden of proof applicable when a criminal defendant’s competency is raised in a post-conviction proceeding.

• First Weber Group Inc. v. Synergy Real Estate Group LLC, which looks at procedures to compel arbitration.

• Milwaukee City Housing Authority v. Cobb, which asks whether federal public housing law preempts Wis. Stat. § 704.17(2)(b), which permits landlords to terminate tenancies upon lease breaches if the landlord gives the tenant notice allowing the tenant five days to remedy the default or vacate the premises.

The court also denied review of 155 cases.