The Fourth Circuit based its decision on its evaluation of the “competing policies” implemented by the ADA and the FAA, rather than on any language in either the statutes or the arbitration agreement between Baker and respondent. If the EEOC could prosecute its claim only with Baker’s consent, or if its prayer for relief could be dictated by Baker, the ...Read More »
01-0933 In Re the Marriage of: Gantner v. Gantner
Diane Jo Gantner appeals from a judgment of divorce from Paul S. Gantner. She argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in awarding 75% of the marital property to Paul and in not awarding her maintenance. We affirm the judgment. This opinion will not be published. Dist II, Ozaukee County, Swietlik, J., Per Curiam Attorneys: For Appellant: Richard ...Read More »
01-1179-CR, 01-1180-CR State v. Felten
Craig A. Felten appeals from the judgment of conviction entered against him and the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. The issue on appeal is whether Felten established the existence of a new factor which would warrant modification of his sentence. Because we conclude that Felten has not established that his sentence should be modified, we affirm the judgment ...Read More »
00-1519 United States v. Arvizu
“The Ninth Circuit’s methodology departs sharply from these teachings, and it reached the wrong result in this case. Its evaluation and rejection of certain factors in isolation from each other does not take into account the “totality of the circumstances,” as this Court’s cases have understood that phrase. The court appeared to believe that each of Stoddard’s observations that was ...Read More »
01-1902-NM, 01-1903-NM, 01-1904-NM, 01-1905-NM In Re the Termination of Parental Rights to: Amanda L.W., Damien L.W., April M.W., Jesse J.V.: Brown County Department of Health & Human Services v. Kimberly A.M., et al.
Kimberly A.M. appeals orders terminating her parental rights to two of her four children. She argues: (1) she was denied due process because the trial court conducted an in camera interview with the two children outside the presence of Kimberly and her trial counsel; and (2) her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the in camera interview ...Read More »
00-3194 State v. Myers
Michael Myers appeals an order denying his postconviction motion in which he sought relief from a judgment convicting him of sexually assaulting his son and exposing the child to harmful material. He argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for two reasons: (1) he should have stipulated to the element “for the purpose of sexual gratification” in order to bar ...Read More »
01-2977, 01-2978, 01-2979, 01-2980 In Re the Termination of Parental Rights to Preston T., Brandon T., Ashton T., Alyssa T.: La Crosse County Department of Human Services v. Peter T.
Peter T. appeals orders terminating his parental rights to four children. He claims the trial court erred in admitting evidence of events which occurred prior to the CHIPS2 dispositional order which formed the basis for the termination proceedings. We conclude the trial court did not err in its evidentiary ruling, and accordingly we affirm the appealed termination orders. This opinion ...Read More »
00-2790 In Re the Commitment of Normington: State v. Normington
Frank Normington appeals from an order denying his motion for relief under Wis. Stat. sec. 806.07 (1999-2000) from an order of commitment under Wis. Stat. ch. 980. We affirm. Normington was found to be a sexually violent person and ordered committed in April 1998. On appeal, we affirmed the order in May 1999. Normington sought discretionary review in higher courts, ...Read More »
01-1641 Koger v. Town of Seymour
Ernest Koger appeals an order lifting a stay of the raze order issued by the Town of Seymour pursuant to Wis. Stat. sec. 66.05(1m)(a) (1997-98). The circuit court found that grounds existed for the Town’s raze order on an unfinished house owned by Koger. However, rather than ordering the house razed, the court gave Koger an opportunity to complete construction. ...Read More »
99-2980 State v. Shuttlesworth
Although defendant contends that the state violated Wis. Stat. Sec. 972.11(5)(b) by failing to submit probability statistics in support of its DNA evidence against defendant in this kidnapping and sexual assault case, this appeal must be dismissed as improvidently granted because the statute referenced by defendant has been repealed. Appeal dismissed. Court of Appeals, Per Curiam Attorneys: For Appellant: Mia ...Read More »
00-2843 Kuski, et al. v. George, et al.
Jeremiah George and Nancy Pienkowski (collectively “the Georges”) appeal a judgment permanently enjoining them from hindering Steve and Tammy Kuski, Fred and Sabina Henckel and Richard and Catherine Peiguss (collectively “the Kuskis”) from their use of an easement. The Georges argue that the trial court erred by: (1) concluding that the Georges had unreasonably interfered with the Kuskis’ use of ...Read More »
01-2293 Alliant Energy Corporation, et al. v. Bie, et al.
“A complaint need only state the nature of the claim; details can wait for later stages, such as an evidentiary hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or summary judgment under Rule 56… “[G]eneral factual allegations”, which suffice at the pleading stage, are exactly what Alliant provided. It plans to reincorporate outside Wisconsin, wants to sell more stock to investors ...Read More »
00-1861 Keip v. Nicewander, et al.
Carol Keip sued the Stevens Point Area School District; the district’s transportation director, James Nicewander; and the district’s insurer, Employers Insurance of Wausau, alleging defamation and, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 (1994), a federal due process violation for failing to provide a name-clearing hearing. Keip’s husband, Duane, sued for loss of society and companionship of his wife. The case ...Read More »
01-1523 Jessup v. Luther, et al.
“The public has an interest in knowing what terms of settlement a federal judge would approve and perhaps therefore nudge the parties to agree to. All this would be of no moment, however, if the agreement were not in the files of the court, for it is the agreement that the newspaper wants. Yet for some reason there is a ...Read More »
01-0066 State v. Key
Troy Key appeals pro se from an order denying his motion for postconviction discovery. We conclude that the trial court’s determination that the sought-after evidence would not produce a different result at trial is not clearly erroneous. We affirm the order. This opinion will not be published. Dist II, Waukesha County, Kieffer, J., Per Curiam Attorneys: For Appellant: Troy Key, ...Read More »
01-2472-FT Chrysler Financial Company LLC v. Falter
Suzanne Falter appeals from the order of Judge Thomas Sazama denying her request for attorney fees under the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA) and the order of Judge Richard Stafford denying her motion for reconsideration. The sole issue on appeal is whether Falter obtained a significant benefit entitling her to attorney fees when she successfully required Chrysler Financial Company to amend ...Read More »
01-0335-CR State v. Smiley
Eric Jason Smiley appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of first-degree intentional homicide, while armed with a dangerous weapon. He also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion. Smiley claims: (1) the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress his first statement to police; (2) the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion ...Read More »
00-3939 U.S. v. Wallace
“To the extent that Wallace is implicitly inviting us to reject Stoia, Cerro, and Montana, and to adopt the Cancilla approach, we decline the overture. (We are aware that the Supreme Court has under consideration the case of Mickens v. Taylor, 240 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc), cert. granted, 121 S. Ct. 1651 (2001), and that Mickens may ...Read More »
01-0985 Wehrenberg v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation
Cara Wehrenberg, pro se, appeals the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Toyota Motor Credit Corporation. Wehrenberg argues: (1) that the lease she signed in California on June 9, 1997, is subject to the provisions of the Wisconsin Consumer Act, Wis. Stat. sec. 421 through 427 (1999-2000);1 (2) that the circuit court’s finding that she was not ...Read More »
00-2071-CR State v. Rupp
John A. Rupp appeals pro se from a judgment sentencing him after revocation of probation and from an order denying his motion for sentence modification based on a new factor. Rupp attacks the validity of his no contest plea, the revocation of his probation, and the sentence imposed after revocation by a variety of claims, including claims that the prosecution ...Read More »
01-2136 U.S. v. Miller
“Here, it was immediately noted after the ‘subpoena power’ comment that the government carried the burden of proof. Additionally, the district court instructed the jury that ‘[t]he government has the burden of proving the guilt of the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt, and this burden remains on the government throughout the case.’ The court also instructed the jury, ‘The defendants ...Read More »
01-0095 Millers Mutual Insurance Company, et al. v. Bresina, et al.
Robert Bresina and the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) appeal from the circuit court’s order affirming in part and reversing in part LIRC’s decision. Millers Mutual Insurance Company cross-appeals. Bresina and LIRC complain that the circuit court improperly applied Wis. Stat. sec. 102.18(1)(d) (1999-2000) when it reduced LIRC’s determination of permanent disability from ten percent to five percent. In ...Read More »
01-1359 State v. Ringler
Amanda A. Ringler appeals from an order revoking her operating privilege based upon her improper refusal to submit to a chemical test following her arrest for operating while intoxicated (OWI). Ringler contends that the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop her vehicle. We disagree and affirm the revocation order. This opinion will not be published. Dist II, ...Read More »
01-0608 In Re the Paternity of Jalysse N.F.: Karen M. v. Craig P.
Craig P. appeals from a judgment of paternity establishing child support at 17% of his gross income and finding him in contempt of court for failure to provide court-ordered financial information and documentation. Craig makes many vague, nonspecific arguments in favor of reversing the judgment. Because the trial court’s decision was not an erroneous exercise of discretion, we affirm the ...Read More »
01-1337-CR State v. L'Minggio
Quintin D. L’Minggio appeals an order of the trial court denying his motion to modify his sentence for having sexual intercourse with a child over 16 years of age as a repeater and obstructing justice. We affirm the denial. This opinion will not be published. Dist II, Racine County, Mueller, J., Brown, J. Attorneys: For Appellant: Quintin D. L’Minggio, Boscobel ...Read More »
00-3347 Essex Insurance Company v. Manley, et al.
James Manley, Select Insurance Agency Inc., and their insurer, Utica Mutual Insurance Co., (collectively, “Manley”) appeal from the circuit court judgment, following a court trial, awarding Essex Insurance Company $24,000 damages. Manley argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment. He contends that Essex’s summary judgment submissions presented no evidence establishing that it had relied ...Read More »
01-0960-CR State v. Aguilera
Alejandro Aguilera appeals an order denying his motion for sentence modification. He claims that his ineligibility for the challenge incarceration program and a deportation order entered after sentencing constitute new factors warranting a hearing on his motion. We disagree and affirm. This opinion will not be published. Dist IV, Jefferson County, Ullsvik, J., Per Curiam Attorneys: For Appellant: Steven P. ...Read More »
01-1886 In the Interest of M.D.: State v. M.D.
M.D. appeals from a judgment adjudicating her delinquent for second-degree sexual assault of a child. M.D. contends that the victim’s testimony was incredible and that the corroborating evidence was inadequate to support a conviction on the sexual assault charge. She also contends that the trial court failed to credit her with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment ...Read More »
00-6567 Dusenbery v. U.S.
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause entitles individuals whose property interests are at stake to “notice and an opportunity to be heard.” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 48. The straightforward reasonableness under the circumstances test of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, not the balancing test approach of ...Read More »
01-2787 In Re the Termination of Parental Rights to Thomas J.R.: Tammie J.C. v. Robert T.R.
This case involves the termination of the parental rights of Robert R., to his son, Thomas R., who was born during Robert’s marriage to Tammie C. We conclude that in order to terminate Robert’s parental rights the circuit court must have had both personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Because the court did not have personal jurisdiction over Robert, the order ...Read More »