William Eich

In State v. Revels, the defendant, charged with causing death by the intoxicated use of a vehicle, appealed an interlocutory order requiring disclosure to the prosecution of a written summary of his expert witness's findings and anticipated testimony under Wis. Stat. § 971.23(2m)(am). Revels argued the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, infringing his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and to present a defense, and alternatively that the order exceeded the statute's requirements. The court reviewed the challenges de novo, presuming the statute's constitutionality, and held that because the provision is procedural rather than substantive it is not subject to vagueness analysis. It further concluded that disclosure of an expert's non-privileged findings does not compel the defendant to incriminate himself or waive work-product protections, which lack constitutional dimension here, and that the order complied with the statute's terms. The court therefore affirmed the discovery order.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned maternal grandparents Elgin and Carol W. who petitioned for custody, guardianship, and visitation of their grandson Jeffrey after his biological parents' rights were terminated in a prior proceeding and he was placed in foster care leading to adoption. The trial court dismissed the petitions, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the termination of parental rights and adoption barred statutory claims for custody and guardianship as a matter of law. The court also rejected the grandparents' equitable visitation claim under Holtzman v. Knott because they had not established a parental-like relationship meeting the required factors, and it found no violation of their constitutional rights. The adoption by the child's foster parents was approved during the proceedings.

family lawcivil rights

This case involved a dispute over whether DEC International was obligated to reimburse Insurance Company of North America (INA) for a payment INA's affiliate made on a performance bond guaranteeing a Danish subsidiary's construction contract for a whey processing plant. DEC had sent a letter agreeing to indemnify CIGNA (INA's affiliate) for demands on the bond, but refused payment after the bond was called due to alleged performance failures, leading INA to sue for the amount paid. The trial court found the letter constituted an indemnity agreement and entered judgment for INA. The appeals court affirmed, holding that the trial court's finding on the parties' intent was not clearly erroneous, that INA had adequately investigated before paying, and that business compulsion justified the payment under suretyship principles. The court rejected DEC's argument that the letter was merely a collateral deposit provision enforceable only by specific performance.

business & regulatory

The case involved property owners suing a neighbor, a town, and a county for damage to their land from flooding allegedly caused by pumping water and building dikes in 1993. The trial court dismissed the suit because the owners did not file a notice of claim within the 90 days required by the pre-1994 version of Wisconsin Statute § 88.87(2)(c). The appellate court reversed, holding that the 1994 amendment extending the filing period to three years is procedural in nature and thus applies retroactively to claims from before the amendment.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved the State appealing a circuit court order suppressing evidence of cocaine found on Albert Amos during a police stop in a prosecution for possession with intent to deliver. The circuit court had ruled that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Amos after observing what appeared to be an aborted drug transaction in a high-crime parking lot known for drug activity and marked with a no-trespassing sign. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the officers had sufficient specific and articulable facts—including the area's reputation for open-air drug sales, a woman's approach to Amos's car followed by her quick retreat upon noticing police, and Amos's immediate departure—to justify an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment. The decision rested on the totality of circumstances supporting a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, consistent with standards from Terry v. Ohio, allowing the evidence to be admitted at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Tri-County Trails Commission, which maintains a recreational trail on a former railroad right-of-way, must erect fencing along the trail under Wis. Stat. § 192.33 to protect adjacent property owners. The circuit court issued a declaratory judgment requiring the fencing, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute imposes no such obligation. The court reasoned that the plain language of § 192.33 requires fencing only by those "operating" a railroad, that Tri-County Trails was not operating a railroad, and that prior circuit-court statements on the fencing issue did not trigger issue preclusion because they were not necessary to the earlier dismissal. The matter was remanded for dismissal of the owners' claims.

propertyprocedure