Robert W. Dean

This case concerned the validity of a November 1976 referendum election in Burnett County, Wisconsin, to relocate the county seat from Grantsburg to Siren, which passed in 16 of 24 municipalities but was not presented to voters in the remaining eight due to the county clerk withholding ballots. Plaintiffs, residents denied ballots, sued to invalidate the election under Wis. Stat. § 59.11, citing procedural irregularities including petition signature verification disputes, failure to count all eligible freeholders, and incomplete absentee ballot distribution. After trial, the circuit court declared the election void, finding reasonable doubt that the results fairly reflected the will of all county voters. On appeal, the court examined the extensive factual record of these irregularities, including a breakdown of potential non-voting populations and petition shortfalls relative to the required one-half of resident freeholders, while assessing whether the election could nonetheless be upheld.

electionsprocedure

This case consolidated two actions where individuals insured under policies from Security Mutual were injured while occupying uninsured motorcycles owned by the named insured or a family member. The policies contained exclusions denying uninsured motorist coverage in such situations, and the trial courts granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding the exclusions permissible. The appellate court reversed, holding that the uninsured motorist statute, which mandates coverage for the protection of persons injured by uninsured motorists, invalidates such exclusions because it focuses on persons rather than vehicles and requires coverage equivalent to that for injuries caused by insured motorists.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between lawyers who had formed a service corporation to practice law; after Melby withdrew in 1977, he sought an accounting and dissolution of the entity under partnership rules because the corporate documents lacked provisions for buying out a departing shareholder. The trial court dismissed that claim and granted declaratory relief to the remaining shareholders, ruling that corporate law governed instead. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that Wis. Stat. sec. 180.99 requires service corporations to follow the corporate provisions of ch. 180, including the rule of perpetual existence, and that the statute's restrictions exist to protect clients rather than to govern relations among the professional shareholders themselves. The decision noted that ethical rules might still affect valuation of shares upon withdrawal but did not alter the choice of corporate over partnership standards for dissolution.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a state appeal from a trial court's order dismissing with prejudice a welfare fraud charge against Braunsdorf, because the district attorney was unprepared to proceed on the scheduled trial date. The appellate court modified the order to a dismissal without prejudice, holding that Wisconsin courts lack authority to dismiss criminal complaints with prejudice prior to the attachment of jeopardy unless a constitutional violation, such as denial of the right to a speedy trial, has occurred. The court reasoned that such dismissal power is neither inherent to the judiciary, recognized under common law, nor granted by Wisconsin statute, though it noted limited exceptions like the uniform agreement on detainers. Other states without authorizing statutes follow the same common-law rule limiting pre-jeopardy dismissals to those without prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Stuhr, three consolidated appeals challenged the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences for multiple burglary and forgery convictions, which doubled the defendants' minimum time before parole eligibility. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that considering parole eligibility when deciding between consecutive and concurrent sentences was not an abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgments. The court reasoned that sentencing discretion allows consideration of factors including offense gravity, offender character, public protection needs, and criminal history, that consecutive sentencing is explicitly authorized by statute, and that parole board rules on eligibility for consecutive terms reflect legislative acquiescence rather than any improper circumvention of intent.

criminal lawprocedure

In Wells v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co., plaintiff Robert Wells sued the Cotters, private landowners, after his car collided with a train at a grade crossing, alleging their failure to cut brush and trim trees violated Wis. Stat. §195.29(6) and contributed to the accident. The Cotters moved for summary judgment, arguing the statute did not impose civil liability. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that a violation of the statute by a private landowner does not create civil liability, reversing the trial court's denial of summary judgment and remanding for dismissal of claims against the Cotters. The court reasoned that the statute lacks any express or implied indication of legislative intent to create civil liability, that common-law precedent shields landowners from liability for natural conditions on their property affecting outsiders, and that highway safety responsibilities rest with the state, municipalities, and railroads rather than private owners. It distinguished prior cases involving railroads and municipalities, emphasizing policy against shifting public duties onto individuals.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved a Wisconsin prisoner subject to an Illinois detainer for temporary transfer to face criminal charges, who challenged the state's delays under the Uniform Act on Detainers as adopted in Wis. Stat. secs. 976.05 and 976.06. The prisoner received notice of the detainer in June 1978 but was not brought before the circuit court until August and did not receive a hearing until October, well beyond the statutory timelines. The circuit court discharged him from the detainer, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court held the 30-day hearing requirement mandatory because time is of the essence under the statute, as delays presume harm to the prisoner from prolonged detainer status (such as restricted privileges or parole denial) and contradict the Act's policy of expeditious disposition; the state's failure to act promptly therefore required discharge.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a post-divorce order modifying child support obligations in which the trial court required the custodial mother, who received AFDC benefits, to pay monthly support via an accumulating lien on her equity in the family homestead to reimburse the county child support agency. The appellate court reversed that portion of the order, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the divorce statutes to impose support payments on a custodial parent for the purpose of securing repayment to the state. The core reasoning was that any recovery of welfare benefits must be pursued through the specific statutory procedures in sec. 49.195, which were not followed here, and that provisions such as secs. 247.075 and 247.30 do not authorize ordering support from the custodial parent or placing liens on her property solely for state reimbursement.

family lawproperty

The case involved the Town of Grand Chute challenging the City of Appleton's interim extraterritorial zoning ordinance, which aimed to restrict land uses in the town's area to the more restrictive option between existing county zoning or actual uses. The trial court found that the ordinance exceeded Appleton's authority under the enabling statute, section 62.23(7a), and declared it invalid to that extent, leading to Appleton's appeal. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the statute permits cities to freeze either existing zoning or uses during the preparation of a comprehensive plan, but not to choose the more restrictive of the two, based on the disjunctive wording "or" and supporting legislative history.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Brotzman v. Brotzman, the plaintiff initiated a divorce action seeking support payments, and after the defendant failed to comply with a temporary support order, the district attorney petitioned to hold him in civil contempt. The trial court found the defendant indigent but denied his request for court-appointed counsel, prompting an appeal on whether such counsel is required in this type of proceeding. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that an indigent defendant is entitled to appointed counsel in a civil contempt action brought by the state to enforce support obligations. The court reasoned that the state's exercise of its police power through contempt proceedings threatens the defendant's liberty, making counsel necessary regardless of whether any resulting imprisonment would be coercive rather than punitive, and directed the trial court to proceed under applicable statutes for appointment.

criminal lawfamily lawcivil rights

In this divorce case, Gerald Mayer filed for divorce and child custody in Rusk County, Wisconsin, after his wife Nancy and their minor child Nash moved to California; a temporary order awarded custody to Gerald. Nancy moved to stay the custody proceedings, arguing that Wisconsin was an inconvenient forum under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and that California was a more appropriate forum. The trial court denied the motion, finding Wisconsin was not an inconvenient forum, and Nancy appealed. The appellate court held that Wisconsin retained home state jurisdiction under the UCCJA because the requirements were met at the time the action was commenced, even if one parent later left the state, and that the motion for a stay was timely under the UCCJA rather than general civil procedure rules. The court analyzed the statutory factors for inconvenient forum determinations, including the child's ties to the state and availability of evidence, without appointing a guardian ad litem.

family lawprocedure

This case concerned a 1975 personal injury to Betty Hunter from a collapsing wall in a school built by Beaver Builders in 1960, with the Hunters suing the School District and Beaver Builders, and the District cross-claiming against the builder. A 1976 statute, sec. 893.155, limited such actions to six years after substantial completion of construction, and the trial court applied it to dismiss the claims against Beaver Builders. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the statute could not be applied retroactively to destroy a cause of action that had vested before its enactment. The core reasoning was that an accrued cause of action is a vested right protected by due process and cannot be abrogated by later legislation, even if other defendants remain available.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved construction lien claims by plaintiffs who performed improvements on property for a prospective buyer under a purchase contract; the buyer defaulted and had no interest in the property when the action began. The court held that the buyer's limited contractual right to purchase did not qualify as an 'interest in land' under Wis. Stat. § 289.01(3) to which a lien could attach, nor did any lien attach to the seller's interest merely from allowing the buyer possession. The decision rested on distinguishing a purchase contract from a land contract, rejecting application of the equitable conversion doctrine to lien rights, and noting practical concerns about title integrity, notice, and verification of ownership records.

property

In State v. Van Laarhoven, the defendant was summarily sentenced by the trial court to ten days in jail for directing insulting words and an obscene gesture at the jury after his brother's guilty verdict, and then to an additional twenty days for calling the judge an "asshole" after the initial sentence. The court of appeals affirmed the ten-day sentence, holding that the contempt occurred in the judge's presence and that immediate punishment was justified to vindicate the court's authority under the summary procedures of Wis. Stat. § 757.04(1)(a). It vacated the twenty-day sentence, however, because the judge had been personally attacked in a manner that triggered the stricter requirements of § 757.04(1)(b), and the record showed that summary punishment was not necessary to preserve order once Van Laarhoven was already in custody.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a business dispute in which Milwaukee Petroleum sought to collect on an open account debt plus two promissory notes that converted the defendants' prior balances. The trial court denied recovery on the notes, finding them incomplete when signed and completed without authority as to amounts, due dates, and interest rates. The appellate court reversed, holding that under Wis. Stat. sec. 403.115 there is a presumption of authority to complete the notes and the defendants failed to prove the completion was unauthorized. The court reasoned that the defendants understood the notes would convert their open-account balances, received the benefit of lower interest rates than the 12% charged on the account, and gained additional time to pay, establishing implied general authority for the insertions. The case was remanded for entry of judgment on the notes plus the remaining open account with interest.

business & regulatory

The case involved members of a nonprofit medical center corporation (organized under ch. 181, Stats.) suing its board of directors for declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate 1977 bylaw amendments that altered membership classes, voting rights, proxy rules, and nomination procedures. The plaintiffs alleged that prior bylaws on member rights had been adopted by custom and acquiescence, making them unamendable by the board alone under sec. 181.13, and that the changes were part of a conspiracy to entrench the directors by diluting member voting power. The trial court had dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the complaint sufficiently stated causes of action because the statutory restriction could apply via custom and because allegations of using corporate power for a fraudulent purpose were legally cognizable. The court further addressed class action requirements and noted that the original pleading was adequate without needing amendment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Droege v. Daymaker Cranberries, Inc., Droege brought an action to quiet title, claiming ownership of a triangular riverfront parcel through adverse possession after entering a sale agreement that required her to acquire clear title. The trial court awarded her the land, but the appellate court affirmed only the portion covering the southernmost 100 feet including the roadway and beach area while reversing the award for the remaining land. The court reasoned that, under the applicable statutes, adverse possession without a written instrument is limited to land that is actually occupied and either substantially enclosed or usually cultivated or improved for twenty years, and the evidence of activities like flagging, hunting, and camping failed to meet this standard for the swamp, eastern edges, and other unspecified areas. It further held that the adverse possessor bears the burden of providing evidence sufficient for a legal description of the occupied portions, which was lacking except for the southern strip.

property

In Pierz v. Gorski, neighboring landowners disputed ownership of several parcels of mostly woodland property, with the Gorskis claiming title to portions of Pierz's land through decades of alleged adverse possession via building a house and outbuildings, planting trees and a garden, maintaining a lawn and septic system, and other uses starting in 1949. Following a jury verdict, the trial court awarded the Gorskis the disputed parcels, but the appellate court reversed the judgment except for the area immediately around the house, garage, shed, yard, septic tank, and garden. The court held that the evidence was legally insufficient because the Gorskis' activities on the wild land were sporadic, not open and notorious enough to apprise a reasonably diligent owner of an adverse claim, and failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of substantial enclosure or usual cultivation and improvement for twenty years.

property

The case concerned a petition for guardianship of the person and property, along with protective placement in a locked ward, for James R. Shaw, a 69-year-old man with repeated admissions for alcohol detoxification. The trial court granted the petition based on testimony about Shaw's drinking, belligerence, inability to manage funds, and risk of harm. On appeal, the court held that evidence of self-destructive behavior such as alcoholism does not by itself establish incompetency, and that a finding of incompetency requires specific proof that the individual cannot make rational decisions about managing his or her life. The decision stressed the need for physician or psychologist reports and a common-sense judicial determination rather than assumptions about drinking patterns.

family lawcivil rights