Shirley S. Abrahamson

This case concerns whether a defendant convicted in Wisconsin of first-degree reckless endangerment should receive credit on his concurrent Wisconsin sentence for time spent in presentence custody in Illinois on an unrelated armed robbery charge. The Wisconsin Supreme Court modified the court of appeals' decision, awarding the defendant 305 days of sentence credit rather than 324 days. The court interpreted Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1)(a) to require credit for all days in custody connected to the Wisconsin offense, determining based on the timing of the Wisconsin detainer that the Illinois custody was connected for only part of the period claimed. The decision clarifies the application of the sentence credit statute in cases involving concurrent sentences from different states.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether Justice Michael J. Gableman's campaign advertisement violated the Wisconsin judicial conduct rule prohibiting misrepresentation of facts about an opponent. The Supreme Court, equally divided, rejected the panel's recommendation to grant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Three justices found that the ad knowingly misrepresented a fact regarding an opponent's record and was not protected by the First Amendment, while the other three disagreed; as a result, the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

electionsfree speech

The case Phillips v. U.S. Bank, N.A. came before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin as a petition for review. The court granted the petition for review, allowing the underlying dispute to proceed to full consideration by the state's highest court. Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Ziegler did not participate in the decision on the petition.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Roehl Transport, a trucking company insured by Liberty Mutual under a policy with a $500,000 deductible and $2 million limit, sued its insurer for bad faith in handling a third-party personal injury lawsuit arising from a truck accident. The underlying case resulted in a jury verdict of $830,400 against Roehl, which fell within policy limits but exhausted the deductible. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an insured with a high deductible may bring a bad faith claim against its insurer even when the judgment does not exceed policy limits, because the insurer controls settlement decisions that can harm the insured. The court found sufficient evidence supported the jury's bad faith determination and damages award, ruled that public policy did not bar the claim, and held that attorney fees are recoverable as a matter of law upon a bad faith finding, while affirming denial of punitive damages.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case State v. Mosay was a criminal matter that reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court on a petition for review. On May 13, 2010, the court denied the petition, leaving the lower court's decision in place. Chief Justice Abrahamson dissented from the denial of review, and Justice Gableman did not participate.

criminal law

The case involved a petition by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals to the state Supreme Court seeking certification of an appeal in State v. Harris. The Supreme Court refused the petition for certification. Chief Justice Abrahamson concurred in the refusal but indicated that the court should have provided reasons for declining to take the case.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute between the Estate of Sustache and American Family Mutual Insurance Company. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals petitioned the Supreme Court to certify the matter for review, but the petition was refused. Justices Abrahamson, Bradley, and Prosser dissented from the decision not to accept certification.

proceduretorts & liability

The matter before the court was a petition to bypass the court of appeals in the criminal case State v. Robert T. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the petition, preventing direct review by the high court at that stage. Justices Abrahamson, Wilcox, and Prosser dissented from the denial. No substantive reasoning or details about the underlying charges appear in the provided order.

criminal lawprocedure

The case of Metropolitan Ventures, LLC v. Gea Associates came before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The court addressed a motion for reconsideration of a prior ruling in the matter. The motion was denied, with a notation that the opinion modifies footnote 7 by reference to another decision. Chief Justice Abrahamson dissented from the denial, and Justice Wilcox did not participate in the proceedings.

procedure

The case Spencer v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County reached the Supreme Court of Wisconsin as a petition for review of a lower court decision. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review. Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley dissented from the denial.

procedure

This case involved a dispute between Converting/Biophile Laboratories, Inc. and Ludlow Composites Corp. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals petitioned the state Supreme Court to certify the case for review. The Supreme Court refused the petition and declined to hear the matter. Three justices dissented from the refusal to certify.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case, Marder v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, came before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The court denied the motion for reconsideration filed in the case. Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley did not participate in the decision on the motion.

procedure

The case concerned a dispute between family trusts over commercial real estate transactions, specifically whether the plaintiffs' attorney waived attorney-client privilege by voluntarily producing certain documents to opposing counsel during discovery. The documents, prepared by a plaintiff for the attorney's use and containing analysis of liability, damages, and strategy, were later determined to be privileged, but were disclosed without the clients' knowledge or consent because the attorney did not recognize their privileged status. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that only the client can waive the attorney-client privilege under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 905.11 and that an attorney's voluntary production of documents in response to a discovery request does not constitute waiver when made without the client's authorization. The court reversed the court of appeals, agreeing with the circuit court that the privilege could not be waived by the lawyer's actions alone, and ordered return of the documents.

procedure

This case involved a tenant, Michele Bast, who was subject to an eviction judgment entered on September 13, 2002, in a small claims proceeding under Wisconsin Statutes chapter 799. Bast filed a motion for reconsideration under Wis. Stat. § 805.17(3) seven days later, which the circuit court denied on October 4, 2002; she then filed a notice of appeal on October 21, 2002, more than 15 days after the original judgment. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that tenants in eviction actions may seek reconsideration under § 805.17(3), but the strict 15-day appeal deadline set by Wis. Stat. § 799.445 runs from the date of entry of the eviction judgment itself, not from the denial of the reconsideration motion. The court reasoned that chapter 799 provides the exclusive procedure for eviction actions, with general civil rules like § 805.17(3) applying only when not inconsistent, and that the appeal timeline must be interpreted to promote the expedited resolution intended for small claims matters. Accordingly, the court affirmed the court of appeals' dismissal of the appeal as untimely.

propertyprocedure

This case involved Daniel J. Wideman, who was convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated under Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a) and sentenced as a third-time offender under the penalty enhancer in § 346.65(2)(c). The defendant moved to vacate the enhanced sentence, arguing that the State had not properly proven his prior OWI offenses, and the circuit court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court also affirmed. The court held that the procedural requirements of § 973.12(1) for establishing prior offenses do not apply to OWI enhancements; instead, if priors are challenged, the State must provide certified copies or other competent proof before sentencing, but the record here—including the complaint's teletype details, the court's statements at the initial appearance, and defense counsel's affirmation at sentencing—was sufficient to support the enhanced penalty without such a challenge. The court reasoned that other statutes and precedents govern proof of priors in this context and that the defendant had adequate notice and opportunity to contest the allegations.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether property owners could appeal a village's special assessment for water and sewer services by posting a $150 cash deposit with the court clerk rather than executing a bond with sureties as literally required by Wis. Stat. § 66.60(12)(a). The circuit court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the court of appeals affirmed on the same ground. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, holding that § 66.60(12)(a) must be read together with Wis. Stat. § 895.346, which expressly authorizes a cash deposit in lieu of any bond or undertaking in civil proceedings, and therefore the cash deposit satisfied the statutory requirements for maintaining the appeal.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to drug possession after the circuit court denied his motion to suppress statements made during custodial questioning. The defendant, who spoke little English, challenged the adequacy of Miranda warnings given to him in Spanish, but the circuit court found the state's evidence sufficient based on the officer's testimony that proper warnings were provided. The court of appeals reversed, concluding the record lacked enough detail about the Spanish-language warnings to assess compliance with Miranda or the validity of any waiver. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the state need not always introduce the exact foreign-language words used, but when a defendant timely raises a challenge, the state must present evidence beyond an officer's conclusory assertion, with the foreign-language warnings preserved in the record, and must prove sufficiency and a knowing waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. The court affirmed the reversal but directed dismissal of the action because the defendant had died.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Ferguson, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of possession of cocaine base and marijuana with intent to deliver while armed, plus bail jumping, based on drugs and a gun found in his car near a park. The circuit court ordered him to pay $105 in State Crime Laboratory testing costs as part of sentencing, a ruling affirmed by the court of appeals under Wis. Stat. § 973.06(1)(c). The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that this statute does not authorize assessment of such lab expenses against the defendant, as they are not fees or disbursements allowed to expert witnesses and the list of taxable costs is strictly limited by the legislature. The court reversed the lower decisions and remanded for proceedings consistent with its interpretation.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Gilmore, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed whether the state could include contents of lawfully intercepted wiretap communications in a criminal complaint charging conspiracy to deliver cocaine without violating the Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law (WESCL). The circuit court had struck the wiretap references from the complaint and dismissed it for lack of probable cause, but the court of appeals reinstated the complaint. The supreme court affirmed the reinstatement with different reasoning, holding that while WESCL does not permit unilateral public disclosure of such communications in a complaint, the state may do so if the complaint is filed under seal with the court. Because the complaint here was not filed under seal, it violated the statute, but the court concluded that suppression of the communications was not an authorized remedy since the interception itself was lawful, and it remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the original complaint under seal.

criminal law

This case concerned whether the City of Oak Creek could enforce a local resolution and ordinance blocking a landfill operator from filling an excavated borrow pit with clean fill, even though the state Department of Natural Resources had approved the plan under a statutory exemption from local permitting requirements. The circuit court issued an injunction preventing the City from interfering, but the court of appeals reversed, concluding that the exemption merely restored the City's preexisting land-use authority. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the injunction, holding that the DNR's exemption authority under Wis. Stat. § 144.44(7)(g) and related administrative rules withdraws municipal power to regulate such facilities and that the City's measures must yield to the state regulatory scheme. The core reasoning was that the legislature had expressly authorized the DNR to exempt qualifying clean-fill operations from local approvals, thereby preempting conflicting local prohibitions.

environmentbusiness & regulatory