Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Case Digests/page 870

Case Digests

01-2965 State v. Smith

Thomas Smith appeals from a judgment and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He contends that his repeater status was not established in accordance with Wis. Stat. secs. 939.62(1) (1997-98) and 973.12. We disagree and affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports. Dist IV, Rock County, Roethe, J., Dykman, J. Attorneys: For Appellant: Thomas C. Smith, ...

Read More »

01-2772 Caraher v. City of Menomonie (57259)

“We conclude that the facts of this case are materially distinguishable from those in Cords v. Anderson, 80 Wis. 2d 525, 259 N.W.2d 672 (1977), the case upon which the Carahers’ ‘known and present danger’ argument relies…. “There are two principal material distinctions between this case and Cords. In Cords, the public was invited to use the path in question. ...

Read More »

00-2248-CR State v. DeFliger

Robert DeFliger appeals a judgment of conviction and an order denying his postconviction motion. The issues relate to extraneous jury information, ineffective assistance of counsel, and other matters. We affirm. This opinion will not be published. Dist IV, Marquette County, Wright, J., Per Curiam Attorneys: For Appellant: Robert J. DeFliger, Green Bay; Ronald J. Sonderhouse, Brookfield For Respondent: Richard J. ...

Read More »

01-1248 Osman v. Phipps, et al. (57260)

“In this case, because the circuit court did not make ‘a decision on the merits’ after remand, its Sept. 26, 2000 document does not constitute a judgment, and the award of statutory interest and double costs, therefore, was in error.” Further, we agree with defendant that the circuit court erred in awarding attorney’s fees for its pursuit of what plaintiff ...

Read More »

01-3282 State v. Michels, et al.

Gary A. Michels appeals from the trial court’s order forfeiting his rights to his 1957 Triumph automobile and transferring title to the State of Wisconsin. Michels contends: (1) Section 346.65(6), as applied to his 1957 Triumph, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, as ...

Read More »

02-0188-CR State v. Workman

Jeffrey Workman appeals a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, third offense. He argues that the circuit court erred by denying his suppression motion. According to Workman, the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him. We disagree and affirm the conviction. This opinion will not be published. Dist III, Barron County, ...

Read More »

02-0533-CR State v. Kidd

This is an appeal from a judgment convicting Michael Kidd of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol content. Because Kidd had three prior convictions, he was subject to more severe penalties under Wis. Stat. sec. 346.65(2)(d) than for his first, second or third convictions. The trial court denied Kidd’s motion ...

Read More »

02-0286-CR State v. Sexton

Bradley Sexton appeals a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and operating a vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration. Sexton argues that the trial court erred by not exercising its discretion when it ruled that Sexton’s sixteen prior convictions were admissible for impeachment purposes pursuant to Wis. Stat. sec. 906.09. This court concludes that the ...

Read More »

01-2337-CR State v. Zuerner

Russell Zuerner appeals a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI) as a third offense. He claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the results of a test of his blood for alcohol concentration. Specifically, Zuerner argues that the State should have obtained a breath ...

Read More »

01-1140-CR State v. Petersen

Mark R. Petersen appeals pro se from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of possession of tetrahydrocannabinols (marijuana) with intent to deliver within 1000 feet of a park. On appeal, he challenges the circuit court’s refusal to suppress evidence found in his girlfriend’s apartment after she consented to the search. We uphold the circuit court. Petersen also seeks ...

Read More »

01-2550 The Lakefront Neighborhood Coalition, et al. v. City of Milwaukee, et al.

The Lakefront Neighborhood Coalition, David and Helen MacGregor, Mimi Mullenax, Barbara Stein, Annette Stoddard-Freeman, and Edwin and Barbara Wiley appeal from a judgment dismissing their complaint against the City of Milwaukee and the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee. The Coalition contends that the trial court erred when it concluded that the Coalition and the individual plaintiffs lacked standing ...

Read More »

01-2365-CR State v. Kayon

Joseph A. Kayon appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion to modify restitution and the subsequent amended judgment of conviction. Kayon argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when ordering him to pay, as restitution, both rental and replacement fees for a television. Additionally, he argues that the record does not provide sufficient facts to determine if ...

Read More »

01-1837 U.S. v. Schaefer

“[T]he government has attempted to justify the loss calculation by relying on generalized allegations of continuing fraud. While we agree with the government’s comment that Schaefer’s entire artwork business was ‘permeated with fraud,’ that characterization may have both civil and criminal aspects. As the cases cited by Schaefer make clear, only the latter category implicates sec. 1B1.3 of the Guidelines. ...

Read More »

01-2700 Groenke v. Town of Pewaukee Police Department, et al.

Frankie Groenke appeals from the judgment granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. He argues on appeal that the court erred when it granted the defendants’ motion and denied his own motion for summary judgment. Because we conclude that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants, we affirm. This opinion will not be published. Dist II, Waukesha ...

Read More »

01-2836 Badger Enterprises Inc. v. HinesVennie, et al.

Debra HinesVennie appeals a summary judgment in favor of the Franz defendants1 and Zoltan Karaszy determining the corporate status of Badger Enterprises, Inc. Badger filed a complaint asking the court for a judgment declaring the number of Badger shares issued and outstanding and the name and address of the owner of each share. HinesVennie was among the many defendants, all ...

Read More »

99-3204 State v. Schwebke

Although defendant argued that the statute requires a “public disturbance,” not merely personal distress, the plain language of the statute requires only a “disturbance” and does not require the conduct necessarily to reach the public in some capacity. “[S]imply because the cases before us have all involved disturbances on a public level does not mean that the statute cannot be ...

Read More »

01-2260 In Re the Finding of Contempt in Re the Marriage of Howe v. Howe

Ronald Howe appeals an order of the circuit court holding him in contempt for failure to make child support and property division payments as ordered in the judgment of divorce. The court ordered Ronald to pay $8,120 in child support arrears, $1,307.88 in interest on the arrearage, $92 per month toward his daughter’s health insurance, and $8,299.94 in attorney fees ...

Read More »

00-2545 State v. Trochinski

Although defendant asserts that he did not understand the elements of the offense with which he was charged because he did not understand the meaning of “harmful to children,” we conclude that the trial court properly rejected defendant’s request to withdraw his no contest plea because we conclude that the signed plea questionnaire and waiver of rights form, together with ...

Read More »

01-46 Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority

Two arguments made by the United States to support its claim that sovereign immunity does not apply to FMC proceedings are unavailing. That the FMC’s orders are not self-executing does not mean that a State is not coerced into participating in an FMC adjudicative proceeding. A State charged in a private party’s complaint with violating the Shipping Act has the ...

Read More »

01-1218 Valley Land Company v. Salmon

John and Harriet Salmon appeal a judgment granting Valley Land Company specific performance on a land contract. After trial to the court, the court found that the parties’ conduct did not make time of the essence as to the Oct. 1, 1999 closing date and that Valley’s final proposed closing date was within a reasonable time. The Salmons challenge these ...

Read More »

00-1543 Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyokabushiki Co.

Prosecution history estoppel does not bar the inventor from asserting infringement against every equivalent to the narrowed element. Though estoppel can bar challenges to a wide range of equivalents, its reach requires an examination of the subject matter surrendered by the narrowing amendment. The Federal Circuit’s complete bar rule is inconsistent with the purpose of applying the estoppel in the ...

Read More »

01-2712 Ripple Management v. Goodavage, et al.

Diana Goodavage appeals the judgment of eviction based on a stipulation she entered into with Ripple Management. She contends the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in denying her motion for relief from the stipulation. We conclude the court properly exercised its discretion and therefore affirm. This opinion will not be published. Dist IV, Dane County, Nowakowski, J., Vergeront, P.J. ...

Read More »

01-131 Gisbrecht v. Barnhart

This conclusion is bolstered by Congress’ 1990 authorization of contingent-fee agreements under sec.406(a), which governs fees for agency-level representation. It would be anomalous if contract-based fees expressly authorized by sec.406(a)(2) at the administrative level were disallowed for court representation under sec.406(b). It is also unlikely that Congress, legislating in 1965, intended to install a lodestar method that courts did not ...

Read More »

01-2579 Brisbane v. Vallencillo

Peter Vallecillo challenges the circuit court’s order of a domestic abuse injunction against him. Vallecillo argues that there was insufficient evidence to find reasonable grounds to believe that Vallecillo might engage in domestic abuse of Nanci Brisbane, the petitioner. Because the resolution of this case rested upon a credibility determination and such determinations are within the circuit court’s discretion, and ...

Read More »

01-3406 Wild v. Subscription Plus, Inc., et al.

“[T]here is no absolute bar to the transfer of a multidefendant suit to a district in which one of the defendants cannot be served. But that leaves the question whether a defendant in a multidefendant suit who cannot be served can be forced to defend in the transferee district or, as most cases hold, must be severed from the rest ...

Read More »

01-1705 In re: the Marriage of Finlay v. Finlay

Further, the court properly exercised its discretion in not imputing income to the husband for his moonlighting work. “The court carefully considered Patricia’s arguments that it should impute moonlighting income to James, and it gave a number of reasons for its decision not to do so: James’s age of 55; his testimony that he was beginning to feel the physical ...

Read More »

01-1304 Alvarez v. Flannery d/b/a Off Road Logging

In an action brought by Trinidad Alvarez against Jack Flannery for the unlawful conversion of standing timber, a jury found in favor of Alvarez and awarded $18,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. The circuit court doubled the compensatory damages. Flannery appealed, contending several reversible errors occurred. We conclude that credible evidence supports the jury’s finding that Flannery ...

Read More »

00-3905 Berman, et al. v. Young, et al.

“Based on our review of the record, Amanda and Pilar failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of fact as to the reasonableness of Young and Threatt’s suspicions of abuse. The district court was correct in determining that Young and Threatt had a reasonable basis for their belief that Amanda was being abused and needed to be removed from ...

Read More »