This case involved an original action brought by Green for Wisconsin and Mark Green against the State Elections Board and its executive director, challenging rules governing the transfer of funds from a federal candidate's campaign committee to a state campaign committee. The Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs, based on the parties' unopposed stipulation to settle. The dismissal followed legislative changes that eliminated the Elections Board and created a new Government Accountability Board with authority to review prior rules and orders. The court had previously issued orders addressing procedural posture, factual disputes, and whether to proceed given the new board's potential role under 2007 Wis. Act 1.

electionsprocedure

This case involved an original action petition filed in the Wisconsin Supreme Court by Green for Wisconsin and Mark Green against the State Elections Board, challenging rules on the transfer of funds from a federal candidate's campaign committee to a state campaign committee following changes in federal law. After legislative action replaced the Elections Board with a new Government Accountability Board, the parties reached a settlement and jointly moved to dismiss the action. The court granted the motion, dismissing the case with prejudice and without costs based on the parties' stipulation. Concurring opinions discussed the court's prior handling of the petition for original jurisdiction, the impact of the board transition, and references to historical election disputes, but the order itself rested solely on the agreed dismissal.

electionsprocedure

The case Heikkinen v. United Services Auto. Ass'n reached the Supreme Court of Wisconsin after a petition for review was filed. The court granted the petition, permitting full consideration of the underlying dispute involving the auto association. Crooks, J., did not participate in the decision to grant review. The excerpt provides no details on the parties' claims, the lower courts' rulings, or any substantive legal issues presented.

procedure

In State v. Trujillo, the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed whether a defendant sentenced for burglary under the truth-in-sentencing regime of 1997 Wis. Act 283 (TIS-I) could obtain sentence modification based on the lower maximum penalties later enacted in 2001 Wis. Act 109 (TIS-II). The circuit court denied Trujillo's motion, the court of appeals affirmed, and the supreme court likewise affirmed, holding that the statutory reduction in maximum confinement time does not qualify as a "new factor" under existing jurisprudence. The court reasoned that the legislature had not required retroactive application of the new penalties and instead provided a separate remedy through Wis. Stat. § 973.195, and that the change was not highly relevant to the original sentencing decision. The decision reaffirmed prior cases such as State v. Hegwood and State v. Crochiere, which limit sentence modification to situations meeting the established new-factor test.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Terrell Coleman, a convicted felon, who was charged with possessing a firearm after grabbing a rifle to defend himself when he heard what sounded like a break-in at a residence where he was waiting for his niece and nephew, only to find it was police executing a no-knock search warrant. The circuit court denied Coleman's request for jury instructions on a defense of privilege and convicted him under Wis. Stat. § 941.29(2). The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a narrow defense of privilege exists to a felon-in-possession charge when the defendant reasonably believes there is an unlawful imminent threat, has no reasonable alternative, possesses the firearm only as long as necessary, and intends to use it only for self-defense or defense of others. The court further held that the circuit court erred by refusing to give the privilege instruction and that the error was not harmless, affirming the court of appeals' reversal of the conviction.

criminal lawguns

This case concerned whether the Wisconsin Court of Appeals must grant interlocutory appeals from circuit court orders denying qualified immunity to state officials in federal civil rights suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the court of appeals must grant every timely petition for such an appeal whenever the denial turns on a question of law, such as whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. The court reasoned that these orders always satisfy the statutory criteria for discretionary interlocutory review under Wis. Stat. § 808.03(2)(a) and (b) because qualified immunity protects officials from the burdens of litigation and the denial is effectively unreviewable after final judgment. The underlying dispute involved a university employee's challenge to disciplinary action for alleged sexual harassment and the officials' claim that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

civil rightsprocedure

The case centered on a dispute between Management Computer Services, Inc. (MCS) and Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co. (HABCO) regarding a 1979 contract for computer services and equipment, including jointly owned software, as well as related claims of conversion of proprietary software, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages. MCS alleged that HABCO breached the contract by misusing software and copied non-contract software without permission. The Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded as a matter of law that the contract was enforceable and HABCO was not excused from performance due to any breach by MCS, reversing the court of appeals on those points. The court affirmed the lower court's handling of the conversion and unjust enrichment claims, including reductions in damages, and set punitive damages at $650,000 after independent review of the jury award.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Lohmeier, the defendant was convicted of two counts of homicide by operating a vehicle while under the influence after striking and killing two pedestrians with his car. The court of appeals reversed the convictions, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed that decision and reinstated the convictions. The case centered on whether the trial court's jury instruction stating that contributory negligence is no defense to the crime, when given alongside instructions on the statutory affirmative defense under Wis. Stat. § 940.09(2), improperly prevented the jury from considering evidence of the victims' conduct. The Supreme Court held that, viewing the full trial proceedings including closing arguments and the specific wording of the affirmative defense instructions, there was no reasonable likelihood the jury was misled into disregarding the victims' actions when evaluating whether the deaths would have occurred even if the defendant had been sober and exercising due care.

criminal lawprocedure