Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

State’s high court to hear oral arguments in 6 cases

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//January 13, 2016//

State’s high court to hear oral arguments in 6 cases

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//January 13, 2016//

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in six cases this month.

Two of the cases are civil cases, while the remaining four are criminal cases, according to a news release. The cases originated from Brown, Jefferson, Milwaukee and Outagamie counties.

On Jan. 20, the court will hear oral arguments in State v. Luis Salinas at 9:45 a.m., Cheryl Sorenson v. Richard Batchelder at 10:45 a.m. and State v. Richard Sulla at 1:30 p.m.

State vs. Salinas examines when crimes can be charged in the same complaint and tried in a single trial.

Sorenson v. Richard involves whether the state was properly served by a plaintiff attempting to sue the state Department of Administration and one of its employees.

In State vs. Sulla, the high court will consider when an evidentiary hearing is required in light of three prior cases that have potentially conflicting holdings.

The court will also hear oral arguments in State vs. James Lagrone at 9:45 a.m., Prince Corp. vs. James Vandenburg at 10:45 a.m. and State vs. Mastella Jackson at 1:30 p.m. on Jan. 25.

In State vs. Lagrone, the justices will consider whether the trial court judge should have spoken with the defendant to find out whether the defendant knew he was waiving his right to testify in the second phase of a not guilty proceeding. The defendant had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

Prince Corp. vs. Vandenbuirg involves a garnishment proceeding involving four tenants that sought to sell their property but one of them owed thousands in tax liens and judgements. Among one of the many questions the justices may consider is whether a creditor can obtain more than the debtor’s share of a payment owed to multiple people.

In State vs. Jackson, the justices will examine a Court of Appeals decision that applied the inevitable discovery doctrine, which provides that evidence from a search tainted by an illegal may be admissible if the evidence would have been found lawfully anyway.

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