High court to take on 12 new cases

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will take on 12 new cases this term from eight different counties.

The cases the justices agreed to take, according to a news release, are from Dane, Racine, Grant, Dodge, Milwaukee, Marathon, Waukesha, Eau Claire and La Crosse counties; the court chose not to hear 86 other cases.

The justices will hear the following cases:

• Blake v. Jossart, a case about a Racine County woman whose child care provider license was revoked in 2010 because of a misdemeanor welfare fraud charge that she pleaded guilty to in 1986. She alleges the revocation was unconstitutional.
• Singh v. Kemper involves a prisoner who is arguing that a recent change to the statutes governing the role of sentencing courts in reviewing prisoners’ positive adjustment time is unconstitutional.
• In Seifert v. Balink, the justices will review the state’s Daubert standards for reviewing and admitting expert testimony in a medical malpractice case involving a baby whose arm was permanently injured during delivery.
• State v. McKellips is the case of a high school basketball coach convicted of “using a a computerized communication system to facilitate a sex crime.” When his victim’s mother took away her cellphone, he bought her a prepaid phone. The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial because it ruled a phone is not a “computerized communication system.”  The state appealed.
• In State v. Salas Gayton, the justices will consider whether immigration status is a factor a court can take into account for sentencing.
• In Milwaukee Police Association v. City of Milwaukee, the court will consider whether the states’ home rule amendment trumps a recently enacted statute preventing municipalities from imposing residency requirements on their employees.
• Dufour v. Progressive Classic Insurance Co. is an insurance case involving a motorcycle accident and whether an insurance company must reimburse one of the drivers in the accident.
• The justices in State v. Moustakis will consider issues presented by newspaper’s public records request to the Vilas County District Attorney’s Office.
• In State v. Loomis, the court will consider whether a court can rely on an assessment called COMPAS in sentencing.
• Water Well Solutions Service Group v. Consolidated Ins. Co. will consider issues arising from a dispute over insurance coverage involving a municipal well in Waukesha.
• In State v. Booth, a bypass of the Court of Appeals, the justices will consider, among other things, whether someone can still be charged with a criminal OWI if that person has already been issued a civil citation for the same offense.
• The court in Clark v. American Cyanamid Co. will consider whether a state statute preventing the plaintiff from suing manufacturers of white lead carbonate unconstitutionally deprives the plaintiff of a property right.