The U. S. Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of whether a Colorado baker discriminated against a gay couple seeking a wedding cake and instead decided that the baker had been treated unfairly by the commission adjudicating the discrimination charge.

In State v. McAlister a majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court struggled to appropriately define cumulative evidence and introduces a contrived definition of recantation.

Adams Outdoor Advertising leased three billboards near the Dane County Regional Airport. Before the expiration of the lease, Adams Outdoor Advertising sought to renew it.

An insurance company deposited its remaining policy limits with the court after settling with several, but not all, of the claimants in a personal-injury lawsuit.

Is a tip to law enforcement from Tumblr.com equivalent to a tip from an anonymous police informant or a tip from an identified citizen informant?

Read the case of Teague v. Schimel at your peril.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently reaffirmed its two-tiered framework for loss of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. It overruled another case requiring a finding of intentionality and once again declined to mandate warnings to a defendant before forfeiture.

The Court of Appeals took the opportunity to again offer instruction regarding when a tort claim accrues for purposes of the statute of limitations.

A police officer’s question to a suspect led the Wisconsin Supreme Court on a 42-page exploration of the constitutional consequences recently. State v. Harris tells the tale.

A recent jury summons prompted to me to think about judges being called to jury service.

In a carefully reasoned decision, the Court of Appeals required certain safeguards before a defendant may be allowed to plead guilty by phone.

In a lucid, logically ordered and eminently readable opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the federal government’s motion for an emergency stay of a temporary restraining order enjoining the enforcement of President Trump’s travel ban.

The Court of Appeals applied the agency doctrine of apparent authority when deciding whether the property owners in an eminent domain case had obtained jurisdiction over the governmental entity that condemned their property.

The Court of Appeals took a dim view of a brother’s response to his sister’s declaratory lawsuit in which she sought to affirm her riparian rights on the Sailor Creek Flowage in Price County.

In its first non-disciplinary case of the term, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a 3-1-3 decision for the second time in six months despite the presence of a new justice.

Is a tree-cutting service entitled to recreational immunity when cutting trees on a conference center’s property that has a public path? The Court of Appeals says “no,” relying on a Wisconsin Supreme Court case from earlier this year on recreational immunity.

The Court of Appeals examined immunity from prosecution for a person who aids someone who appears to be suffering from a drug overdose. In the process, the opinion in State v. Williams offered a raw glimpse into the drug subculture.

In a case that lies at the intersection of child-pornography law and restitution law, the Court of Appeals concluded that the mother of a victim of child pornography could not obtain restitution from an offender.

The Court of Appeals recently tackled the novel question of whether an employee of a health care organization can access a patient’s records without the patient’s consent.

Under the implied-consent law, is your consent to a blood test for alcohol “coerced” because it is a foregone conclusion that the threatened license revocation for refusing would be vacated at a refusal hearing? The Court of Appeals recently took up this question.

Issues concerning damages were front and center in a small-claims case that was successfully appealed.

The Court of Appeals recently tackled the timely issue of what constitutes evidentiary authentication of cell phone text messages.

In a highly unusual “decision,” the Wisconsin Supreme Court again deadlocked in a Shiffra case but this time issued five different opinions, most of them containing personal sniping.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently rebuked the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a 2010 opinion upholding a Waukesha County judge’s cursory denial of a defendant’s right to self-representation.

A sexual-assault case provided the context for the Court of Appeals to distinguish a formal arrest from detention in one’s home during the execution of a search warrant.

A sheriff did battle with the open records law and lost.

In a rare unanimous decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court construed the meaning of the statute on grandparents’ visitation rights after a divorce.

In Judge William Brash’s first published appellate opinion, he tackles the hearsay exception for dying declarations.

The Court of Appeals rejected Planned Parenthood’s bid for declaratory judgment on the construction of two abortion statutes, and in the process damaged the idea of justiciability.

A majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices expanded the contours of the community-caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement even while embarrassing themselves through the way they reached their decision.