Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Weekly Case Digests — Oct. 10-14, 2016

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 14, 2016//

Weekly Case Digests — Oct. 10-14, 2016

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 14, 2016//

Listen to this article

7th Circuit Digests

7th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Michael R. Pence

Case No.: 16-1509

Officials: POSNER, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges

Focus: Immigration

Preliminary injunction preventing blockade to Syrian refugees properly granted

“The governor’s brief asserts “the State’s compelling interest in protecting its residents from the well‐documented threat of terrorists posing as refugees to gain entry into Western countries.” But the brief provides no evidence that Syrian terrorists are posing as refugees or that Syrian refugees have ever committed acts of terrorism in the United States. Indeed, as far as can be determined from public sources, no Syrian refugees have been arrested or prosecuted for terrorist acts or attempts in the United States. And if Syrian refugees do pose a terrorist threat, implementation of the governor’s policy would simply increase the risk of terror‐ ism in whatever states Syrian refugees were shunted to. Federal law does not allow a governor to deport to other states immigrants he deems dangerous; rather he should communicate his fears to the Office of Refugee Resettlement.”

Affirmed

Full Text

7th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: George B. Meuser v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Case No.: 16-1052

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Disability Insurance Benefits

George Meuser suffers from schizophrenia and applied for Disability Insurance Benefits principally be‐ cause of that impairment. But an administrative law judge concluded at Step 2 of the 5‐step disability analysis that Meuser’s schizophrenia was not a severe impairment and

denied benefits on that basis. A magistrate judge presiding by consent, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), upheld that ALJ’s decision, but Meuser argues that it rests on a profound misunderstanding of the medical evidence and thus is not supported by substantial evidence. We agree.

Affirmed

Full Text

7th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: Jeffrey Brill v. TransUnion LLC

Case No.: 16-1091

Officials: POSNER, MANION, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Credit Reporting Dispute

Appellant fails to make plausible claim against TransUnion and dismissal is appropriate

“And last, supposing that the signature on the lease extension was determined to be forged (presumably by Pfeifer), what next? Because of the secrecy surrounding Brill’s settlement with Toyota, we know none of its terms, though we can surmise that Brill obtained some money. Toyota has reported that it has treated the $8,795 owed it by Brill under the lease extension (if indeed he was the signatory of that document) as “bad debt,” implying forgiveness. It would not be right to award him damages against TransUnion that duplicated relief he’d obtained from Toyota, but that is something we can’t determine because he will not reveal the terms of the settlement nor, as far as we’re aware, has he asked Toyota to do so.”

Affirmed

Full Text

7th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: DCV Imports, LLC v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives

Case No.: 16-1015

Officials: BAUER, POSNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

DCV Imports, LLC, a family operated fireworks importer in rural Illinois, petitions for review of an order denying renewal of its import license. An administrative law judge found that DCV Imports willfully failed to keep required records of its daily transactions, see 18 U.S.C. § 842(f); 27 C.F.R. § 555.127, and recommended that the company’s license not be renewed. The regional

office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives accepted that recommendation, and the decision was upheld by the Deputy Director of ATF. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Deputy Director’s decision and deny the petition for review.

Petition for Review Denied

Full Text

7th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. James M. Kruger

Case No.: 15-3203

Officials: POSNER, RIPPLE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Plain Error – Sentencing Guidelines

Defendant-appellant James M. Kruger was arrested in 2013 after a day-long crime spree in southwestern Wisconsin during which he robbed his uncle, kidnapped a 69 year-old farmer, stole multiple vehicles, and drove over rural roads at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to elude capture by the authorities. He pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court ordered him to serve a prison term of 180 months. Kruger appeals the sentence, contending that the district court committed plain error in applying the Sentencing Guidelines when it found that he “otherwise used” a firearm to commit a kidnapping, see U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(I)) & 2A4.1(b)(3), comment. (n.2), and assigned several points to his criminal history. We find no plain error in the enhancement for use of a firearm, and because any potential error in the calculation of his criminal history did not affect his advisory Guidelines sentencing range, we do not reach that issue.

Affirmed

Full Text

7th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. C. Gregory Turner

Case No.: 15-1175

Officials: Kanne, Rovner, and Sykes, Circuit Judges

As noted in the general unclassified opinion in this case, Defendant Gregory Turner was convicted of willfully conspiring, with Prince Asiel Ben Israel, to provide services for Zimbabwean Specially Designated National (“SDNs”), a group of government officials and related individuals deemed to be blocking the democratic processes or institutions of Zimbabwe. Both Turner and Ben Israel are U.S. persons.

This is the supplemental classified opinion addressing Turner’s claims, on appeal, that the government’s investigation violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) and that the obtained or derived evidence should have been suppressed. Having reviewed the unclassified and classified record, we find that the order of the district court denying suppressions of the FISA evidence and its evidentiary fruits was proper.

Affirmed

Full Text

7th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: Ryan Lord v. High Voltage Software, Inc.

Case No.: 13-3788

Officials: EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sexual Harassment – Title VII

Ryan Lord claims that he was sexually harassed by male coworkers at High Voltage Software, Inc., and that High Voltage fired him for complaining about it. High Voltage responds that the conduct Lord complained about wasn’t sexual harassment and that it fired Lord for other reasons: failing to properly report his concerns, excessive preoccupation with his coworkers’ performance, and insubordination. The district court concluded that Lord’s claims under Title VII for hostile work environment and retaliation failed as a matter of law. The judge accordingly entered summary judgment for High Voltage. We affirm. Lord has not shown that he was harassed because of his sex, nor has he called into doubt the sincerity of his employer’s justifications for firing him.

Affirmed

Full Text

7th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Justin Wykoff

Case No.: 16-1307

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges

Focus: Garnishment – Restitution Exemption

Appellant has no legal argument to oppose garnishment to satisfy restitution

“In fact he has no legal leg to stand on. The federal criminal code requires that restitution be paid immediately unless the district court provides otherwise, 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1), which it did not. In United States v. Sawyer, 521 F.3d 792, 795 (7th Cir. 2008), we pointed out that at the start of incarceration “any existing assets should be seized promptly. If the restitution debt exceeds a felon’s wealth, then the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A, 3664, demands that this wealth be handed over immediately.” This is an important rule—for who knows what might hap‐ pen to Wykoff’s assets during his years of imprisonment. He or members of his family or for that matter the Indiana state pension fund might decide that there are better things to do with those not inconsiderable assets than give them to Bloomington.

Affirmed

Full Text

7th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: Daniel Diedrich et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Case No.: 15-2573

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

Focus: RESPA Violation

The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) sets forth specific procedures that a mort‐ gage lender or mortgage servicing company must follow in response to a borrower’s request for information. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC failed to follow the letter of the procedure when responding to the plaintiffs Daniel and Natalie Diedrichs’ request for information. The Diedrichs sued, but the district court granted summary judgment for Ocwen, finding that the Diedrichs had failed to set forth sufficient facts, which, if taken as true, would establish that they were injured by the RESPA violation. The Diedrichs appealed and we affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

7th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: Illinois Transportation Trade Association, et al v. City of Chicago, et al

Case No.: 16-2009; 16-2077; 16-2980

Officials: POSNER, WILLIAMS, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Ordinances for Transportation Network Providers – 5th amendment

Plaintiff’s claims are without merit in case against city for differences in regulation for UBER vs Transportation Network Providers

“There are enough differences between taxi service and TNP service to justify different regulatory schemes, and the existence of such justification dissolves the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim. Different products or services do not as a matter of constitutional law, and indeed of common sense, always require identical regulatory rules. The fallacy in the district judge’s equal protection analysis is her equating her personal belief that there are no significant differences between taxi and TNP service with the perception of many consumers that there are such differences—a perception based on commonplace concerns with convenience, rather than on discriminatory or otherwise invidious hostility to taxicabs or their drivers. If all consumers thought the services were identical and that there was therefore no ad‐ vantage to having a choice between them, TNPs could never have gotten established in Chicago.”

Affirmed in part

Reversed in part

Full Text

7th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: Joe Sanfelippo Cabs, Inc., et al v. City of Milwaukee et al

Case No.: 16-1008

Officials: POSNER, WILLIAMS, and SYKES, Circuit Judges

Focus: Transportation Network Providers – 5th Amendment

Appellant claims that services such as UBER and LYFT and their attainment of permits to operate taxi-like services violate the WI constitution are invalid.

“The plaintiffs’ contention that the increased number of permits has taken property away from the plaintiffs without compensation, in violation of the constitutional protection of property, borders on the absurd. Property can take a variety of forms, some of them intangible, such as patents. But a taxi permit confers only a right to operate a taxicab (a right which, in Milwaukee, may be sold). It does not create a right to be an oligopolist, and thus confers no right to exclude others from operating taxis. An excellent amicus curiae brief filed by Reason Foundation offers the hypothetical example of a city government that “issued a license to the first grocery store or gas station in a growing town. Years later, after the population had grown, other individuals applied for li‐ censes to create competing grocery stores and gas stations to better serve the needs of the expanding market. … Ultimately, the pressure for additional services might drive the City to issue additional licenses,” thus breaking the monopoly of the initial, single licensee. “It would be absurd for the incumbent owners of the sole grocery store and gas station to assert a property right in the monopoly value of their businesses and claim a ‘taking’ for any reduction in secondary market value due to the newly‐issued licenses, just as it would be absurd to claim a taking for reduced profits resulting from increased competition.” (The term “primary market” in the preceding sentence refers to the issuance of the licenses, “secondary market” to the resulting competition among the licensees, which is to say the taxi companies, including however the app‐based ridesharing companies.)

Affirmed

Full Text

7th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Charles R. Schrode

Case No.: 15-3522

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Charles Schrode was convicted in state court for predatory criminal assault of a four‐year‐old family member. He later pled guilty in federal court to videotaping assaults of the same child on two other dates, and receiving and possessing child pornography of other victims. He was sentenced to 630 months’ imprisonment for the federal offenses, some of which was to run consecutively to his state sentence. On appeal, Schrode argues that none of his federal sentence should run consecutively to his state sentence. But we affirm Schrode’s sentence. The district court did not err in applying some of his federal sentence to run consecutively to his state sentence, because it did not clearly err in finding that his state offense was not relevant conduct for all of his federal offenses.   Schrode also received a life term of supervised release, which he now challenges, along with several of the conditions of supervised release, which he argues improperly delegate judicial power to the probation office. However, not only did the district court adequately justify its reasons for imposing a life term of supervision, Schrode also waived any challenges to his conditions of supervised release by affirmatively with‐ drawing his objections to those conditions at the sentencing hearing. Nonetheless, we grant a limited remand to bring the sentencing calculation for Schrode’s production offenses in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e)

Affirm

Full Text

7th Circuit court of Appeals

Case Name: Matthew Schaefer, et al v. Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC

Case No.: 15-2393

Officials: FLAUM and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges, and PETERSON, District Judge.

Focus: Diversity Jurisdiction

This diversity case requires us to review the district court’s application of Illinois tort law, particularly concerning spoliation of evidence. Matthew Schaefer, a construction worker, alleges that he was seriously injured when a defective piece of scaffolding fell and struck him on the head. So, in addition to bringing a workers’ compensation claim against his employer, Schaefer sued the scaffolding manufacturer, Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC. When he learned that the piece of scaffolding that hit him had been lost, he added claims for negligent spoliation of evidence against his employer, Brand Energy Services, LLC, and against Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC, the company that had engaged Brand to build scaffolding at a Dynegy power plant. Schaefer also alleged claims for construction negligence and failure to warn against Dynegy. Schaefer’s wife joined his claims for negligent spoliation and brought claims for loss of consortium against each of the defendants. In a series of decisions, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants. At the heart of the case is the missing piece of scaffolding, which had been lost while in Dynegy’s possession, before anyone had tested it for defects. The district court held that without the missing piece, Schaefer could not prove his product liability claims against Universal. The district court also held that Dynegy was not liable for any defects or negligence in the construction of the scaffolding. We affirm these decisions.

But the district court also held that Schaefer and his wife could not prove their spoliation claims either, reasoning that because the Schaefers were unable to prove that the missing piece was in fact defective, they would be unable to prove that the loss of the piece caused them any damage. The district court here relied on an incorrect statement of Illinois spoliation law, which does not require a plaintiff to prove that he would have won his case but for the spoliation. A spoliation claim under Illinois law requires only that the plaintiff show a “reasonable probability” of success on the underlying suit. Because the Schaefers adduced evidence from which a jury could make this finding—the batch of scaffolding used on the Dynegy project had a large number of defective pieces—the grant of summary judgment on the spoliation claims was improper. Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on the spoliation claims against Brand and Dynegy.

Affirmed

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals Digests

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Matthew Allen Lilek

Case No.: 2014AP784-CR

Officials: Curley, P.J., Kessler and Brash, JJ.

Focus: Plea Withdrawal

Matthew Allen Lilek appeals from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to his no-contest pleas to charges of second-degree sexual assault, with use of force, and to aggravated battery. Lilek also appeals the order denying his postconviction motion, and the post-remand court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his pleas following an evidentiary hearing on remand.

On appeal, Lilek argues that: (1) he did not enter his pleas voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently; (2) the trial court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion; and (3) the trial court should not have ordered subsequent competency examinations after the initial report opined that Lilek was incompetent and was not likely to regain competency. We disagree and affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Christopher E. Masarik

Case No.: 2015AP194-CR

Officials: Curley, P.J., Brennan and Kessler, JJ

Focus: Motion to Suppress

Christopher Masarik was convicted by a jury of first-degree reckless homicide and arson. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and an order denying his postconviction motion without a hearing. Masarik seeks a new trial on the grounds that the trial court erred when it denied

his suppression motion. In the alternative, he seeks an evidentiary hearing on his claim that counsel was ineffective. He also argues that he is entitled to concurrent rather than consecutive sentences. His arguments are unpersuasive, and accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction and the postconviction order.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Nicholas D. Hall

Case No.: 2015AP823-CR

Officials: Curley, P.J., Kessler and Brash, JJ.

Focus: Penalty Enhancer – Court Error

Nicholas D. Hall appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of intentionally violating a no-contact order issued pursuant to a felony conviction and for one count of disorderly conduct, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 941.39 and 947.01(1) (2013-14). Both crimes included the habitual criminality penalty enhancer and were designated domestic abuse incidents. See WIS. STAT. §§ 939.62(1)(b) and 968.075(1)(a). Hall also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion for a new trial. He argues: (1) the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress a 911 call; (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance; and (3) the trial court erroneously denied Hall’s motion for a mistrial. We reject his arguments and affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: Thomas Woznicki v. Jeff Moberg, et al

Case No.: 2015AP1883

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Focus: Request for Injunction

Thomas Woznicki appeals an order denying his request for an injunction prohibiting his former employer—the New Richmond School District (District)—from releasing his District personnel file under Wisconsin’s open records law, WIS. STAT. §§ 19.31–39.  We conclude that any public interest in nondisclosure of Woznicki’s personnel file is outweighed by the strong and presumptive public interest in public access to, and disclosure of, his personnel file. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s order.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. J.B.

Case No.: 2016AP483; 2016AP484; 2016AP485

Officials: Brennan, J.

Focus: Termination of Parental Rights

Mr. B appeals from orders terminating his parental rights3 to J.B, J.B, and J.B.4 He argues that: (1) the circuit court erred when it proceeded to the dispositional hearing the day it found Mr. B in default; and (2) the circuit court erred when it failed to order a competence exam. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Edward Leon Jackson, Sr.

Case No.: 2015AP1194

Officials: Reilly, P.J., Gundrum and Hagedorn, JJ.

Focus: Sentence Modification – Newly Discovered Evidence

Edward Leon Jackson, Sr., appeals pro se from an order denying his postconviction motions seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and sentence modification based on new factors. We affirm the order, as the supporting affidavit to which Jackson points may have been newly discovered but the information in it is not, so he is not entitled to a second trial. Likewise, the facts he claims are new factors are not new and so do not warrant sentence modification.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District II

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Ali Garba

Case No.: 2015AP1243-CR

Officials: Hagedorn, J.

Focus: Blood Test – Error

Ali Garba was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The State tested Garba’s blood, and the results showed a substantial amount of alcohol in his system. Garba sought to challenge the reliability of this test result through expert testimony. According to Garba, the presence of anomalies in tests of other blood samples conducted the same day undermined the reliability of his results. However, the experts could not say what effect, if any, the anomalies had upon the reliability of Garba’s results. The circuit court concluded that the testimony was speculative and excluded it under WIS. STAT. §§ 907.02 and 904.03. Garba contends that this was error and deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense. Garba also challenges a portion of the jury instructions he claims created an unconstitutional presumption that the test results were accurate and reliable. We affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. David L. Tarlo

Case No.: 2015AP1502-CR

Officials: Reilly, P.J., Gundrum and Hagedorn, JJ.

Focus: Restitution

David Tarlo challenges the circuit court’s award of restitution to the mother of a victim of child pornography. He argues the court erred in concluding the mother met her burden of proving that the claimed loss was the result of his criminal conduct. We agree and reverse the portion of the judgment requiring restitution.

Recommended for publication

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District II

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. A.S.W and J.P.W.

Case No.: 2015AP2119; 2015AP2120

Officials: HAGEDORN, J.

Focus: Request to Inspect Records

Douglas M. Yanko—the intervenor-appellant— appeals from an order of the circuit court denying him access to the juvenile court records of A.S.W. and J.P.W. Yanko was convicted of repeated sexual assault of a child and seeks to examine court and law enforcement records in these separate cases—both of which involved the same victim—for possible exculpatory evidence to use in his postconviction proceedings. He claims that the court should have granted his request to inspect the records under WIS. STAT. § 938.396(2) and (2g)(dm), or at least reviewed them in camera, before denying his request. He additionally claims that denying him access to the records violated his due process right to present a defense. We conclude that: (1) Yanko has no statutory right to inspect the juvenile records for possible exculpatory evidence, (2) the court did not otherwise erroneously exercise its discretion in denying his request without an in camera review, and (3) denying Yanko access to the records did not violate due process. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s order.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District II

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Jordan A. Branovan

Case No.: 2016AP622-CR

Officials: Neubauer, C.J.

Focus: Motion to Suppress

Jordan A. Branovan appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of possession of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) and possession of drug paraphernalia. Branovan contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence recovered from his vehicle because the traffic stop was unreasonably extended in order to conduct a canine sniff. We disagree and, thus, affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District II

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. D.C.M.

Case No.: 2016AP1205-FT

Officials: Reilly, P.J.

Focus: Sex Offender Registration

D.C.M. appeals from a circuit court order lifting the stay on his sex offender registration. D.C.M. argues that the notice requirements of WIS. STAT. § 938.34(16) were not satisfied. The State agrees. We reverse the lifting of the stay

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Bruce H. Burnside

Case No.: 2015AP1841-CR

Officials: Kloppenburg, P.J., Sherman and Blanchard, JJ.

Focus: Sentence Modification

Bruce Burnside appeals his conviction for second degree reckless homicide and an order denying his postconviction motion. Burnside frames his sole issue on appeal as whether the circuit court’s “erroneous perception of the sentences usually imposed for comparable single-fatality OWI homicide cases in Dane County” constitutes a new factor warranting sentence modification. We affirm for the reasons discussed below.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Brandon E. Jordan

Case No.: 2015AP2062-CR

Officials: Sherman, J.

Focus: Plea Withdrawal – Deferred Prosecution Program

Brandon Jordan appeals a judgment of conviction for violating a harassment injunction issued under WIS. STAT. § 813.125(7), as well as the circuit court’s order denying his postconviction motion for plea withdrawal. Jordan asserts that his conviction should be overturned because his termination from the Deferred Prosecution Program was not done in compliance with the terms of his deferred prosecution agreement and thus violated his due process rights. Jordan also asserts that he is entitled to withdraw his plea because the circuit court failed to ascertain whether a factual basis existed for his conviction. For the reasons discussed below, I affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Samuel K. Dixon

Case No.: 2015AP2307

Officials: Lundsten, Sherman and Blanchard, JJ

Focus: Motion to Suppress

Samuel Dixon appeals a judgment convicting him of felon in possession of a firearm. Dixon challenges the circuit court’s denial of his suppression motion. Specifically, Dixon argues that he was unconstitutionally seized when a police officer detained him without reasonable suspicion. We agree with Dixon that reasonable suspicion was lacking and, therefore, reverse and remand for the circuit court to grant suppression of evidence resulting from the unlawful seizure.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: Lester A. Born v. Gregory A. Born

Case No.: 2015AP2519

Officials: Lundsten, Sherman and Blanchard, JJ.

Focus: Probate

Lester A. Born appeals an order for summary judgment denying Lester’s petition to admit Judith (Judy) J. Born’s unsigned 1991 will into probate. On Gregory A. Born’s summary judgment motion, the circuit court dismissed Lester’s petition and, after determining that Lester lacked standing to challenge Judy’s October 16, 2014 will, granted Gregory’s petition to admit the 2014 will into probate. Lester argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because he established material facts creating a genuine dispute as to whether Judy was unduly influenced to revoke her 1991 will. We disagree and affirm.

Full Text

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