David T. Prosser jr

This case concerned Robert Artic's challenge to evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his Milwaukee residence during a narcotics investigation, where police entered the home after arresting his son and conducted a 'knock and talk' that led to observations from the backyard and eventual consent to search the upstairs unit. Artic was convicted of maintaining a drug trafficking place and possession with intent to deliver cocaine, and he argued ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging the police-created exigent circumstances or illegal curtilage observations. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that Artic voluntarily consented to the search of his upstairs residence and that the search was sufficiently attenuated from the initial illegal entry under the Brown v. Illinois factors, meaning any deficiencies in trial counsel's performance did not prejudice the outcome.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Bank Mutual's foreclosure on mortgages securing business loans to S.J. Boyer Construction, Inc., and its attempt to obtain judgments against Steven and Marcy Boyer, who had signed personal guaranties of payment. After the bank elected the shortened redemption period under Wis. Stat. § 846.103(2), the Boyers sought relief from the judgments, arguing that the election required the bank to waive or forfeit its claims against them as guarantors. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that proceeding under the shortened redemption period does not prevent a mortgagee from obtaining judgment against a guarantor, because the statute's waiver requirement applies only to persons personally liable for the underlying debt (i.e., the borrower or mortgagor), not to guarantors whose obligation arises from a separate contract. The court reasoned that the statutory language and purpose of protecting the mortgagor from deficiency liability do not extend to guarantors, and therefore the circuit court correctly denied the Boyers' motions for relief.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities reached the Supreme Court of Wisconsin through a petition for review. On February 12, 2007, the court granted the petition. Justice Prosser dissented regarding the denial of a separate petition for review filed by the Wisconsin State Senate and Assembly. The provided excerpt does not detail the underlying dispute or any final ruling on the merits.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

The case Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities reached the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on a petition for review after proceedings in lower courts. The court denied the petition for review on February 12, 2007. Justice Prosser dissented as to the denial of the separate petitions for review filed by the Wisconsin State Senate and Assembly.

procedure

This case involved a challenge by Wisconsin legislative leaders to amendments negotiated by Governor Doyle to a tribal gaming compact with the Forest County Potawatomi Tribe. The amendments expanded the types of permitted games, made the compact perpetual, committed the state to future funding, and waived sovereign immunity. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Governor lacked authority to bind the state to a perpetual compact removing legislative oversight, to authorize games prohibited by the state constitution and criminal statutes, or to waive sovereign immunity. The court reasoned that the Governor's statutory authority under Wis. Stat. § 14.035 and federal IGRA did not extend to these actions, which conflicted with constitutional limits on gaming and separation of powers principles. The decision declared the challenged compact provisions invalid.

criminal lawfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In State v. Anderson, the defendant was charged with disorderly conduct (later amended to battery) and signed a written waiver of his right to a jury trial, after which the circuit court held a bench trial and convicted him. Anderson appealed, arguing that the waiver was invalid because the court and State did not affirmatively approve it and because the court failed to conduct a personal colloquy to confirm it was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the court's acceptance of the waiver form, scheduling of a bench trial, and conduct of the trial constituted approval, and the State's participation without objection constituted consent, but determined the record was insufficient to assess whether the waiver was voluntary. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the waiver's validity while also mandating that trial courts engage defendants in a personal colloquy in all future cases involving jury trial waivers in criminal matters.

criminal lawprocedure