Paul C. Gartzke

This case involved a man, W., petitioning to be adjudicated the father of two children born to M. during her marriage to R. After an initial order for blood tests was issued, the legislature enacted Wis. Stat. sec. 767.458(1m), allowing dismissal of the action if a judicial determination that a man other than the husband is the father is not in the child's best interest. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found a high probability that such a determination would not be in the children's best interests and could cause them damage or irreparable harm, based on testimony from psychologists and others regarding the children's stable family life. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of W.'s petition, holding that his asserted statutory and constitutional rights to establish paternity did not apply or had been waived, and that the best interests findings were supported by the record.

family law

The case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Laura and Nancy Scheunemann against Dr. David Rowe and related defendants, which the trial court dismissed with prejudice after the plaintiffs failed to file a mediation request as required by Wis. Stat. sec. 655.445. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that the trial court retained competency to exercise jurisdiction. Relying on Eby v. Kozarek, the court reasoned that the statute makes filing a mediation request mandatory but treats the timing requirement as directory, so a complete failure to file merely postpones discovery, pretrial conferences, and trial until the mediation period expires rather than depriving the court of authority to proceed.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiffs suing Wisconsin state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enjoin and declare unconstitutional the use of the state capitol for Hanukkah ceremonies and Christmas pageants, while also requesting attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The trial court ruled on the merits by barring the Hanukkah events but allowing the Christmas pageants, entered judgment accordingly, and postponed resolution of the fees issue; plaintiffs did not appeal within the required time and later moved to vacate and reenter the judgment to restart the appeal clock. The court denied the motion, holding that the February 23, 1988 judgment was final and appealable under Wis. Stat. § 808.03(1) even though the fees claim remained unresolved. The core reasoning was that a judgment resolving the merits of a § 1983 action is final because an award of fees under § 1988 is separable from the underlying cause of action, comparable to execution on a judgment, and allowing vacatur solely to extend appeal time would undermine the policy against piecemeal appeals.

civil rightsprocedurereligious liberty

The case concerned whether the Wisconsin DNR was required to remove land from the Woodland Tax Law program, triggering a tax penalty, after owner Louis Rotfeld sold part of the enrolled acreage. The circuit court held that the relevant statute gave the DNR discretion rather than mandating declassification and remanded for the agency to exercise that discretion. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the statute is unambiguous and that its plain language makes partial conveyance a cause for mandatory declassification. The court deferred to the DNR’s reasonable interpretation because the statute requires the contract to run with the entire parcel and partial sales conflict with the program’s goals of forest protection and local tax revenue.

taxesenvironmentproperty

The case involved Douglas Middleton's convictions for first-degree murder, arson, and armed robbery, based in part on his oral and written confessions to police. Middleton appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the confessions, arguing that they were obtained after he invoked his right to counsel by asking his wife to contact a specific attorney and that police failed to inform him the attorney had arrived and sought to meet with him. The court held that Middleton did not invoke his right to counsel during interrogation and that police were not required to inquire about retained counsel, but concluded that statements made after the attorney's arrival were inadmissible because Middleton's Miranda waiver was not voluntary and knowing without that information. The matter was reversed and remanded for the trial court to determine the timing of the confessions relative to the attorney's arrival, whether Middleton was impelled to testify by any unlawfully obtained evidence, and whether any error was harmless. The decision rested on application of Miranda v. Arizona and Edwards v. Arizona to the facts of the interrogation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a title insurance policy issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company to Blackhawk Production Credit Association, which had taken an assignment of a land contract interest as security for a loan to Kim Rolfe. Blackhawk discovered a prior undisclosed lien by another bank and settled the resulting foreclosure action by paying to clear title, then sought to recover under the $85,000 policy for the loss caused by the defect. The trial court found in favor of Blackhawk for the full policy amount based on calculations of net unsecured loss, but the appellate court reversed the judgment. The court reasoned that mortgage title insurance only indemnifies against loss if the security's value is impaired below the policy limit due to the title defect, and here the value available after settlement exceeded $85,000, so no recoverable loss occurred under the policy.

propertybusiness & regulatory