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

In State v. Harris, Jerry Harris appealed his convictions for battery and three counts of second-degree sexual assault, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by stating in closing argument that he was not asking the jury to believe Harris and that Harris had not been truthful about everything. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and the denial of postconviction relief. The court held that counsel's remarks were a reasonable tactical choice to maintain a consent-based defense strategy after Harris's testimony conflicted with evidence of multiple sexual contacts, rather than abandoning the strategy mid-trial. Applying the Strickland v. Washington standard, the court found that counsel's performance was not deficient when viewed in the context of the full trial and that no prejudice analysis was needed. The decision rejected any per se rule against counsel expressing doubts about client credibility.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a contractor who sued homeowners for the unpaid balance on a contract to build a house addition, after the homeowners sent a check marked as final payment that the contractor cashed; the homeowners counterclaimed for damages from faulty workmanship that caused a persistent roof leak. The trial court dismissed the contractor's claim on grounds of accord and satisfaction and awarded the homeowners damages for repairs to the roof and related interior damage. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that the accord and satisfaction defense was properly raised in the pleadings, the check was admissible despite discovery objections, and the counterclaim gave adequate notice under Wisconsin's notice-pleading rules to support the full damages award. The court also held that the contractor waived a mitigation defense by not pleading it.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case involved a claim by Shirley Mullen and her husband against Horace Mann Insurance Company under an uninsured motorist policy after Mullen was injured in an accident involving an uninsured driver (Strain) and another driver (Coolong), from whom the Mullens had already received a $26,000 settlement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Mullens for the full $25,000 policy limit, but Horace Mann appealed, arguing that a reducing clause in the policy limited coverage by subtracting amounts received from other liable parties. The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin reversed, holding that neither Wis. Stat. §§ 632.32(4)(a)1. and 631.43(1) nor public policy invalidated the reducing clause or prohibited the insurer from limiting its obligation in this manner. The court relied on prior precedent such as Leatherman v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co. and legislative history showing that the statutes did not bar such clauses, concluding that the policy terms controlled and stacking of uninsured motorist coverage with liability recoveries was not required.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Hahn, the state appealed the dismissal with prejudice of its complaint charging Kevin Hahn with homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle after a fatal truck accident. The trial court dismissed the case because the state had impounded the defendant's truck but then allowed it to be released and partially dismantled before the defense could examine it. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the state violated its due process duty to preserve evidence that met the Trombetta standard of constitutional materiality because it had apparent exculpatory value and no comparable evidence was reasonably available by other means. The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in choosing dismissal as the sanction after balancing the state's conduct and the prejudice to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Production Credit Association (PCA) seeking to enforce a security interest in crops sold by debtor farmers (the Poads) to Pillsbury, after the Poads defaulted on loans and failed to remit sale proceeds to PCA. The trial court awarded PCA damages for conversion, but the appellate court reversed. The court held that PCA's security agreement and financing statement adequately described the harvested crops as collateral without needing a real estate description, and that the security agreement authorized the Poads to sell the crops. It further reasoned that the agreement's condition requiring proceeds to be paid to PCA was ineffective because it was not within the buyer's control, making the authorization unconditional under Wis. Stat. § 409.306(2) so that PCA's security interest did not survive the sale to Pillsbury.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a dispute over surplus funds from a foreclosure sale of a property, where both Vickie Weber, holding a docketed judgment against the property owner, and Schlittler Construction Company, with a construction lien for work performed, claimed priority. The court decided that Schlittler's lien had priority and ordered the funds disbursed to the company. The core reasoning was that under Wisconsin statute 779.01(4), a construction lien takes priority over liens originating after the visible commencement of work on the improvement, and the lien relates back to the start of construction in mid-1982, predating the 1984 judgment.

property

The case involved a lawsuit by the estate of a nursing home resident who was injured after falling from her wheelchair, claiming the facility was negligent in failing to use safety restraints like seatbelts despite her history of falls and disabilities. The trial court dismissed the complaint at the close of the plaintiff's case, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that expert testimony was required to prove the applicable standard of care because state regulations classified physical restraints as requiring a physician's written order for a limited time, placing the decision outside ordinary lay experience. Without such testimony, the plaintiff could not establish negligence.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case involved the state appealing the dismissal of citations issued to potato farmers for operating unregistered tandem-axle trucks equipped with potato boxes on public highways during harvest. The court affirmed the dismissals, holding that the vehicles qualified as implements of husbandry exempt from registration under secs. 341.05(17) and 340.01(24), Stats. It applied the three statutory tests and found the vehicles were designed for agricultural purposes (with permanent potato boxes and low-ratio gearing), used exclusively in agricultural operations, and operated principally off highways. The court rejected the state's argument that the vehicles were instead farm trucks under sec. 340.01(18), noting that the exemption statute controlled and the vehicles' limited use did not trigger farm truck classification.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The McDonalds sued Century 21 real estate entities and agents for negligence after a buyer they prequalified failed to complete the purchase of their home, leading to financial damages. The trial court awarded tort damages based on the agents' failure to properly screen the buyer under the listing contract. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that no independent tort duty existed apart from the contractual obligations, as Wisconsin law does not recognize tort claims for negligent performance of contract duties without a separate legal duty.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved property owners challenging a City of Wisconsin Dells ordinance that allowed delinquent electric utility bills to be imposed as special assessments against the served real property, creating liens placed on the tax roll. The plaintiffs argued the ordinance exceeded the city's statutory authority under sec. 66.60(16), violated due process and equal protection, conflicted with Public Service Commission rules, and failed to mitigate damages. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that the statute unambiguously authorizes special charges for current services like electric utility without limitation to the enumerated examples of maintenance services, and that the ordinance complied with constitutional and other requirements through notice and hearing procedures.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether Pabst Brewing Company's sales of beer to out-of-state wholesalers, who picked up the product at its Milwaukee plant for distribution elsewhere, counted as Wisconsin sales under Wis. Stat. sec. 71.07(2)(c)2 for purposes of apportioning the company's franchise tax liability. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue had assessed additional taxes by treating those pickups as in-state sales and including them in the sales factor numerator, a position upheld by the Tax Appeals Commission but reversed by the circuit court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court, holding that the statute is ambiguous but that its intent is for the purchaser's location, rather than the place of delivery or pickup, to control whether a sale occurs in Wisconsin. The court reasoned that the statutory language excluding the effect of f.o.b. points or other conditions of sale supported attributing the sales based on the out-of-state wholesalers' business locations.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved the State of Wisconsin seeking forfeitures from the City of Prairie du Chien and its wastewater treatment plant superintendent, Phillip Halverson, for 718 alleged instances of falsifying records and failing to report effluent violations under the city's pollutant discharge permit. After the state tried twelve selected claims—with mixed results—the trial court dismissed the remaining 706 claims with prejudice, citing the burden on the court system and the view that the state had already made its point. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court lacked authority to dismiss the claims on those grounds, as the state is not protected by the constitutional right to a day in court and the separation of powers doctrine bars judicial interference in executive agencies' enforcement decisions under the relevant statutes. The court therefore reversed the dismissal of the untried claims while affirming the judgment on the tried claims.

environmentprocedure

In State v. Poole, the defendant pleaded guilty to burglary under a plea agreement in which the state agreed to recommend a $1,500 fine; at sentencing the prosecutor made that recommendation but added a reference to the defendant's subsequent probation revocation and the qualifier "but that is our agreement." The trial court imposed a five-year prison term and denied the defendant's motion for relief, prompting this appeal. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor's qualified language breached the plea agreement by implying reservations about the bargained-for recommendation and therefore reversed and remanded for resentencing. The court reasoned that a prosecutor must give a neutral recitation of the plea terms without undercutting language, drawing on analogous decisions from other states that treat such comments as a breach regardless of the sentence ultimately imposed. Because plea withdrawal was not the uniform remedy under Wisconsin precedent, the appropriate relief was resentencing before a different judge.

criminal lawprocedure

William Staples, an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institute, sought to appeal trial court orders that rejected his petitions for certiorari review of two prison disciplinary proceedings without addressing the merits, citing a prior order restricting his filings due to indigency concerns and lack of urgency. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals but determined that no actions had been commenced in the trial court because Staples had not paid filing fees and the court had not waived them, rendering the orders non-appealable under Wis. Stat. § 808.03(1). Treating the appeals as petitions for mandamus to compel the trial court to consider the petitions, the appellate court denied relief, finding the record insufficient to assess the validity of the prior restriction order and noting that Staples had adequate remedies available by renewing or supplementing his petitions in the trial court as permitted. The court emphasized that prisoners have a right of access to courts but that procedural requirements for commencing actions must be met.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights