Quantcast
Home / Case Digests (page 830) /

Case Digests

01-3236-CR State v. Fields

Maurice Fields appeals a judgment convicting him of second-degree sexual assault by use of force. He also appeals the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Fields argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied his ...

Read More »

01-4061 Chapman v. Maytag Corp.

“It is undisputed that Petry did not conduct any scientific tests or experiments in order to arrive at his conclusions. Petry never produced any studies, tests or experiments to justify or verify his conclusions, despite his representations to the court ...

Read More »

02-0208-CR State v. Welch

Melvin C. Welch appeals from a judgment of conviction for violating a harassment injunction. Welch raises five issues: (1) whether the harassment injunction is unconstitutionally vague; (2) whether the criminal complaint was sufficient; (3) whether there was sufficient evidence to ...

Read More »

01-3255 Martin v. Deuth

“As the Supreme Court held in Coss: ‘[O]nce a state conviction is no longer open to direct or collateral attack in its own right because the defendant failed to pursue those remedies while they were available (or because the defendant ...

Read More »

01-1702-CR State v. Grimes

Harold Grimes appeals a judgment convicting him of carrying a concealed weapon. Grimes contends that article I, section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which provides that “people have the right to keep and bear arms,” renders sec. 941.23 unconstitutional. This ...

Read More »

02-1301 U.S. v. Cole

“As the district court concluded here, discharging a firearm is an inherently risky act. Even though shots were not aimed at a particular person, the actions of the mob could easily have caused an injury; the case law is replete ...

Read More »

02-0354 Jensen v. Baker

This is a small claims action which arises out of Gilbert Jensen’s sale of a 1997 Dodge Neon to Cristyn Baker. Jensen filed a replevin action seeking return of the Neon and $5,000 in damages. The trial court determined that ...

Read More »

01-3986 Livermore v. Amax Coal Co.

“Amax’s experts and the third-party experts opined that Billy Livermore’s death was not caused by or contributed to by pneumoconiosis. In contrast, only Dr. Jones, Maxine Livermore’s expert, positively concluded that pneumoconiosis was a significant factor in Billy Livermore’s death. ...

Read More »

01-1552, 01-2760 Park v. City of Chicago

“We turn first to Ms. Park’s contention that the district court violated the mandates of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), when it denied her motion in limine and thus declined to exclude the contested documents from ...

Read More »

01-3693 Yadegar-Sargis v. INS

“Ms. Sargis undoubtedly has endured harassment and hardship in Iran on the basis of her ethnicity and religious affiliation. She has been confronted by police because her dress did not conform to the requirements imposed by the dominant religion, interrogated ...

Read More »

01-1848-CR State v. Snodgrass

Charles Snodgrass appeals from a judgment of conviction and an order denying his postconviction motion. The issues are whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause, whether his right to a speedy trial was violated, and whether he was ...

Read More »

01-3024-CR State v. Polnitz

David E. Polnitz appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pled guilty to one count of robbery, with the use of force, as party to a crime. Polnitz claims that the trial court erred when it denied his ...

Read More »

01-3302 Scott v. Barnhart

“Although the Commissioner submits that the evidence of record demonstrates that Darius could not satisfy Listing 112.05’s diagnostic definition of mental retardation, we are hard pressed to find this precise conclusion either implicitly or explicitly in the ALJ’s opinion. See ...

Read More »

01-2093-CR State v. Galewski

Jason D. Galewski appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress and a judgment convicting him of injury by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle. Galewski argues that the trial court erred by denying his suppression motion because the ...

Read More »

01-2983 U.S. v. Farr

“[W]e refuse to agree with Farr’s meritless argument that the trial judge abused his discretion in declining to grant a third continuance. At the outset, we note that Farr and his attorney had both adequate time and access to discovery ...

Read More »

02-0162-CR State v. Timm

Shawn A. Timm appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), second offense. Timm contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence because the arresting officer did not have reasonable ...

Read More »

01-3018 U.S. v. McLeczynsky

“When read in its entirety and including the incorporated allegations from Count I, Count II describes in great detail McLeczynsky’s role as an intermediary between bribe payors and payees who, for personal profit, participated in a scheme by which corrupt ...

Read More »

01-2509 Stubbe v. Guidant Mutual Insurance Co.

“It is reasonable to read the schedule of underlying limits (which lists underinsured motorist coverage as ‘included’) and the policy’s requirement that the insured ‘maintain in full effect the insurance afforded by each policy described in the Declarations’ to indicate ...

Read More »

02-0487-CR State v. Cleaves

Howard S. Cleaves appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense (OWI). Cleaves argues that the trial court erred in modifying the standard jury instruction regarding the definition of operating a motor vehicle. ...

Read More »

01-3261 Lloyd v. Vannatta

“Although we have not yet ‘conclusively determined whether, or to what extent, the one-year deadline in § 2244(d)(1) is actually subject to the doctrine of equitable tolling,’ Johnson v. McCaughtry, 265 F.3d 559, 565 (7th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 ...

Read More »

01-3298 Fabyan v. Achtenhagen, et al.

“Here, the legislature has specifically dictated what a plaintiff must do to initiate a cause of action. Fabyan did not comply with this mandate. The trial court lacked the competence to proceed with this case because the clear mandates of ...

Read More »