Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Wisconsin high court accepts 10 new cases

By: Caley Clinton, [email protected]//December 12, 2014//

Wisconsin high court accepts 10 new cases

By: Caley Clinton, [email protected]//December 12, 2014//

Listen to this article
Staff photo by Kevin Harnack
(Staff photo by Kevin Harnack)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court this term will consider cases involving destruction of evidence, the state’s Open Records Law and how to characterize certain prior convictions, among others.

The justices voted to accept 10 new cases Friday, while denying review in 76 cases.

The 10 cases up for review include two involving destruction of evidence, one out of Ozaukee County, State v. Weissinger, and one originating in Winnebago County, State v. Luedtke.

• The justices’ decision in State v. Guarnero, an appeal out of Milwaukee County, could determine how Wisconsin law characterizes certain prior convictions. The case concerns whether the circuit court improperly used a prior federal guilty plea and conviction under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to count as a prior offense. The justices’ decision could determine how Wisconsin law characterizes certain prior convictions.

• A Racine County case up for review, The Journal Times v. Racine Bd. of Police and Fire Commissioners, involves a dispute over the state’s Open Records Law.

• In State v. Chamblis, out of La Crosse County, the court will review issues related to the state’s appeal of a sentence imposed on a repeat drunken driver.

• An Outagamie County case, MS Real Estate Holdings LLC v. Donald P. Fox Family Trust, concerns the proper legal rules that apply to a right of first refusal.

• The justices also will consider a dispute over a $378,000 real estate commission for a multimillion dollar sale that fell through before closing, in Ash Park v. Alexander & Bishop out of Brown County.

• A Grant County case, State v. Hogan, concerns whether evidence that led to a conviction should have been suppressed because of the way it was obtained by police during a traffic stop.

• In reviewing State v. Obriecht the justices will consider whether pre-sentence incarceration credit may be applied to reduce a sentence’s potential term of parole supervision rather than a period of re-incarceration. That case originated in Dane County.

• A civil suit out of Waushara County, Mayhugh v. State, examines the relationship between the doctrine of sovereign immunity and Wis. Stat. § 301.04, which provides that the Department of Corrections “may sue and be sued.”

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests