Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / News/page 1195

News

01-3612 U.S. v. French

“In this case, French failed to produce any evidence that his driveway and/or gravel walkway were hidden from public view, inaccessible, or otherwise used for intimate activity. Nothing about the walkway alerted Kelly that French had closed the walkway to the public in order to engage in private activities and that curious neighbors, members of the public, and government agents ...

Read More »

01-1587 U.S. v. Conley

“The cardinal rule for reading multi-count indictments is that each count must stand on its own two feet; ‘[e]ach count … is regarded as if it was a separate indictment.’ United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 62 (1984) (quoting Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393 (1932)); United States v. Sims, 144 F.3d 1082, 1085 (7th Cir. 1998). ...

Read More »

01-2113 State ex rel. Swinson v. McCaughtry

Jesse Swinson appeals the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for certiorari review of the decision of the disciplinary committee at Waupun Correctional Institution. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the committee’s finding of guilt on all of the charges, and also that his other claims are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm. This opinion will not be ...

Read More »

01-3840 Davis v. Litscher

“Despite the various factors he offered to the Wisconsin courts, Davis failed to satisfy the requisite showing of materiality to warrant an in camera review. First, Davis only argued to the state court that Vance was depressed, not delusional, and nothing in the record indicates that her depression would cause her to misperceive reality. In addition, his assertions regarding her ...

Read More »

01-3235 State ex rel. Bridges v. Berge

Jimmy Bridges appeals from an order dismissing a petition for a writ of certiorari. Bridges, an inmate, sought review of his placement in administrative confinement. On appeal, Bridges raises several arguments cast in terms of due process. Because Bridges has no liberty interest in remaining in the general prison population, his due process arguments fail. We further hold that Bridges ...

Read More »

01-3975 U.S. v. Gajo

“As a general proposition, the statements of a non-conspirator are not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) … However, this is not a case where the district court admitted Smith’s statements as non-hearsay, but rather to provide context to a coconspirator’s statements properly admitted under Rule 801. It is well settled that such an approach is appropriate because statements are not hearsay ...

Read More »

01-2187 Wojtasiak v. Podiatry Associates S.C., et al.

Sandra and Edward Wojtasiak appeal a judgment dismissing their medical malpractice action against Dr. Thomas Tilkens after a jury found Tilkens not negligent. The Wojtasiaks contend that the trial court erred when it (1) admitted expert testimony from Dr. Richard Reinherz; (2) refused to admit prior deposition testimony during Dr. Joseph Cullen’s videotaped trial testimony where Tilkens’ counsel made no ...

Read More »

02-0952 State ex rel. Garibay v. Circuit Court for Kenosha County and the Hon. Bruce Schroeder

“We conclude that the language of § 971.20(6) is plain and unambiguous and applies in a multiple defendant action even when a codefendant is unavailable to either join or refuse to join a substitution request. Accordingly, we deny Garibay’s petition for supervisory writ. … “We conclude that the circuit court’s decision was based upon the clear and unambiguous requirements of ...

Read More »

01-2634 Taylor, et al. v. Marshall & Ilsley Trust Company, et al.

Dolores A. Pokrzywinski’s godchildren appeal from the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Marshall & Ilsley Trust Company and Thomas N. Tuttle, Jr. The trial court concluded that Marshall & Ilsley and Tuttle were not negligent in the establishment or administration of Pokrzywinski’s trust. The godchildren claim that Marshall & Ilsley and Tuttle were negligent because they ...

Read More »

01-2970 In Re: the Marriage of Anthony Keller v. Barbara Keller

We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to apply the correct legal standard, the child’s best interest, and modify placement accordingly. “Under Wis. Stat. § 767.24(2)(am), there is a statutory presumption of joint legal custody. However, there is no provision establishing a presumption of joint placement. While the physical placement statute, Wis. Stat. § 767.24(4)(a)2, requires the court ...

Read More »

00-2779-CR State v. Miller

James Miller appeals a judgment of conviction and an order denying his postconviction motion. The issues are whether certain testimony about Miller’s interrogation should have been admitted, and whether he was entitled to a new trial because the jury was exposed to extraneous prejudicial information during deliberations. We affirm. This opinion will not be published. Dist IV, Portage County, Flugaur, ...

Read More »

01-3162 State ex rel. Freeman v. Berge

“[W]e are satisfied that Freeman is not appealing the decision of the Whiteville disciplinary officer that he is guilty of certain offenses. Rather, he is appealing the decision to transfer him to SMCI and the decision to place him in administrative confinement at SMCI. “From the petition, it appears that the decision to transfer him to SMCI was made by ...

Read More »

01-3021-CR State v. Huusko

David Huusko appeals a judgment convicting him of one count of armed robbery as a habitual offender, party to a crime. He also appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He argues that the trial court erroneously denied his defense counsel’s motion to withdraw and testify on his behalf. Huusko also contends that the trial court erroneously allowed ...

Read More »

00-1531 Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, et al.

The doctrine of Ex parte Young permits Verizon’s suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities. The Court thus need not decide whether the Commission waived its immunity from suit by voluntarily participating in the regulatory regime established by the Act. In determining whether the Ex parte Young doctrine avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, ...

Read More »

01-1518 Anderson v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.

“Indeed, Combustion Engineering conceded in oral argument that there is no safe threshold for exposure to asbestos in connection with mesothelioma. The jury was free to disregard Combustion Engineering’s contention that Mr. Anderson’s exposure to its asbestos was too low to cause his cancer. … “Combustion Engineering offers us nothing other than rhetoric to support its argument that the jury’s ...

Read More »

01-3141-CR State v. Bogumill

Dawn Bogumill appeals a judgment of conviction for third offense operating after revocation. Bogumill argues, as she did in the trial court, that sec. 343.44(2g)(c) is unconstitutional because it has the effect of Bogumill being treated differently from similarly situated people. Bogumill has two prior OAR convictions that were related to failure to pay fines or forfeitures. Because her current ...

Read More »

00-1214 Alabama v. Shelton

The Sixth Amendment does not permit activation of a suspended sentence upon an indigent defendant’s violation of the terms of his probation where the State did not provide him counsel during the prosecution of the offense for which he is imprisoned. A suspended sentence is a prison term imposed for the offense of conviction. Once the prison term is triggered, ...

Read More »

01-1969 State v. Seefeldt

Defendant’s conviction must be reversed. “For purposes of discussion, we will assume that Carroll’s remarks did indeed violate the pretrial order. The question we then need to answer is whether as a result of those remarks the State would have been denied a fair proceeding before an impartial jury. Stated differently, did Carroll’s reference to the warrants cause the jury ...

Read More »

01-2477-CR State v. Albright

James A. Albright appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense (OWI). Albright argues that the facts of this case, as evidenced by the videotape played at the motion hearing, do not constitute probable cause to arrest. We affirm the judgment of conviction. This opinion will not be published. Dist II, Green Lake ...

Read More »

01-687 U.S. v. Cotton

The omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence does not justify a court of appeals’ vacating the enhanced sentence, even though the defendant did not object in the trial court. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b)’s plain-error test, where there is an “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects ...

Read More »

01-1879 State v. Radke

Accordingly, we conclude that the statute is constitutional and we affirm defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment without parole for being a persistent repeater of child sexual assaults. “That the law might have negative side effects does not make it unconstitutional. The legislature could rationally conclude that the economic, social and legal costs of allowing individualized sentencing determinations of recidivist child ...

Read More »

01-0493 Klovers v. City of Beaver Dam Klovers v. City of Beaver Dam

The City of Beaver Dam appeals an order relating to a real estate tax assessment for property owner Mary Klovers. The main issues are whether the circuit court could set the 2000 assessment as part of a certiorari review of the 1999 assessment, and whether the court erred in ordering the City to pay attorney’s fees to Klovers. We reverse ...

Read More »

00-3562 Donald R. Kitten v. DWD

“As articulated by the legislature, the purpose of the WOHA is: to render unlawful discrimination in housing. It is the declared policy of this state that all persons shall have an equal opportunity for housing regardless of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, marital status, family status, lawful source of income, age or ancestry …. [The WOHA] ...

Read More »

01-1309 The Alexander Company Inc. v. Bensaid, et al.

Abdul Bensaid and Cynthia Brown appeal a judgment of the circuit court sanctioning Bensaid and Brown for their failure to comply with the court’s scheduling order and the statutes governing civil procedure. Brown additionally appeals the court’s judgment finding a partnership by estoppel between Brown and Bensaid. For the following reasons, we affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official ...

Read More »

01-1968 Otto v. Milwaukee County

Thomas J. Otto appeals from an order dismissing his complaint against Milwaukee County, which alleged violations of Wis. Stat. sec. 109.01(3) (1999-2000), breach of contract, and promissory estoppel. Otto claims: (1) the law of the case doctrine precluded a subsequent trial court from dismissing his claims because the first trial court denied earlier dispositive motions; (2) dismissal of his Wis. ...

Read More »

01-1155-CR State v. Jones

“Although this court in Lee did not specifically define when a court of appeals’ decision is ‘issued,’ in St. John’s Home this court equated the date stamped on the court of appeals’ decision or order as the date it was ‘issued and filed.’ Id. at 43. The fact that the clerk’s office as a matter of convenience and courtesy mails ...

Read More »

01-3210 Schaalma v. Labor and Industrial Review Commission, et al.

Joel D. Schaalma appeals an order affirming a Labor and Industrial Review Commission (LIRC) decision, which held that Schaalma was not entitled to a 25 percent increase in disability awards for injuries to his dominant hand since he did not suffer a total loss of use of his hands or fingers. We affirm. This opinion will not be published. Dist ...

Read More »

01-3117 Coleman v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors

“The judge understandably was troubled by the fact that the plaintiff had delayed till almost the last minute in attempting service and then had failed not once but twice to serve the defendant in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(j)(2). The plaintiff’s lawyer could not reasonably have believed that she was serving the president of the Board even if she ...

Read More »

01-2833 Kowalski v. County of Milwaukee Employees' Retirement System Annuity and Pension Board

Anthony Kowalski appeals from a circuit court order which affirmed the County of Milwaukee Employees’ Retirement System Annuity and Pension Board’s decision that he did not qualify for an accidental disability retirement pension. Kowalski contends that the pension board’s decision was arbitrary and unreasonable and that if the pension board’s interpretation of the ordinance was correct, then the ordinance violates ...

Read More »