John P. Foley

The case involved the Manitowoc Company's challenge to property taxes assessed by the City of Sturgeon Bay on two graving docks used for shipbuilding and repair, seeking refunds for taxes paid from 1976-82 and declaratory relief from future assessments. The company argued the docks qualified as exempt manufacturing machines under Wis. Stat. sec. 70.11(27), while the city and Department of Revenue maintained they were taxable. The court held that the actions could proceed as common-law claims for recovery of a void tax, were not barred by sovereign immunity, and that declaratory relief was unavailable because exemptions turn on annual use. It further ruled that the docks were machines rather than buildings, applied an integrated-plant test to find they were used directly in manufacturing despite incidental nonexempt uses, and therefore reversed the dismissal and remanded for calculation of the refund.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved employees of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation who received unemployment compensation benefits while taking compensatory time off for overtime work, despite continuing to receive their regular salaries and benefits. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's decision upholding the Labor and Industry Review Commission's grant of benefits. The court reasoned that the salaries and benefits constituted "wages" under the Unemployment Compensation Act, similar to vacation pay, meaning the employees were not unemployed and thus ineligible for benefits. It further held that granting benefits would contradict the Act's purpose of aiding workers who suffer economic loss from unemployment and would produce an absurd result, and rejected viewing the payments as deferred cash overtime since federal overtime laws do not apply to state governments.

labor & employment

The case concerned whether Eau Claire County’s combined position of register in probate and probate registrar qualified as a “managerial” employee under the Municipal Employment Relations Act (MERA), which excludes such employees from collective bargaining. The Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission determined that the position lacked significant managerial authority and included it in the bargaining unit, but the circuit court reversed that determination. On appeal, the court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, holding that the commission’s interpretation of managerial status was entitled to deference but had been misapplied to the facts. The court reasoned that the position’s role in preparing and forwarding a recommended budget to the county board constituted the establishment of an original budget, thereby satisfying the commission’s own standard for authority to commit employer resources.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute over liability on a land contract for commercial property, where J & J Rec. Corp. assumed the balance due as part of acquiring the vendee's interest from Lonsway, who had misrepresented the amount owed, and Mews personally guaranteed J & J's performance. After J & J obtained a judgment against Lonsway for the excess balance and later defaulted, leading to foreclosure sales that produced insufficient proceeds, a deficiency judgment was entered and Lonsway sought indemnification from J & J and Mews. The court affirmed the judgment holding J & J and Mews jointly and severally liable to indemnify Lonsway, concluding that Mews had knowledge of the misrepresentation and subsequent litigation and impliedly waived any defense based on it, that the method of calculating interest was correct, and that evidence supported the trial court's finding of fair value at the foreclosure sale.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Carlson Heating, Inc. sued Dale Onchuck for payment on labor and materials but the trial court dismissed the complaint after Carlson's counsel failed to provide a list of lay and expert witnesses as required by a pretrial order. Carlson appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to order disclosure of lay witnesses and that dismissal was an abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that Wis. Stat. § 802.11(1)(m) permits trial courts to order exchange of lay witness names because the listed pretrial matters are not exhaustive and the rule mirrors federal practice allowing such orders. It further ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in barring testimony and dismissing the case, as Carlson had no justifiable excuse for noncompliance despite clear notice and opportunity to comply. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed.

procedure

In State v. Bono, Philip Bono was convicted of arson and sentenced to twelve years in prison; he was released on bail pending appeal but failed to appear at a hearing to consider revoking bail and his whereabouts became unknown. The state moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Bono had absconded and could not be compelled to respond to any judgment the court might issue. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal, relying on precedents such as Smith v. United States and Molinaro v. New Jersey, because the defendant was unlikely to appear voluntarily whether the judgment was affirmed or reversed, and continuing the appeal would waste judicial resources and taxpayer funds while potentially encouraging bail jumping.

criminal lawprocedure