The Supreme Court held and Open Administrative Conference and Rules Hearing on June 29, 2010 at the State Capitol to discuss Justice Roggensack's proposal to change procedure for hearing petitions for rules, as well as to discuss Rules Petition 09-01, in the matter of amendment of Wis. Stat. ss. 802.10, 804.09, 804.12, and 805.07.

The Supreme Court held and Open Administrative Conference and Rules Hearing on June 1, 2010 at the State Capitol to discuss the following items:
I. Discussion of June 2010 calendar
II. Discussion of calendar for 2010-11 term
III. Discussion of Rules Petition 07-09: In the matter of the Definition of the Practice of Law and the Administration of a Rule Defining the Practice of Law (Julie Rich) (The current draft submitted by the State Bar of Wisconsin can be found at: http://wicourts.gov/supreme/docs/0709revision3.pdf)
IV. Discussion of Rules Petition 10-06: Amendment of SCR 71.01, regarding required court reporting, and Wis. Stats. 885.42, videotape procedure (Julie Rich) http://wicourts.gov/supreme/docs/1006petition.pdf
Matters Held Over
V. Discussion of Justice Roggensack’s proposal to change procedure for hearing petitions for rules—draft circulated to interested persons
VI. Discussion of possible ethics issues related to researching e-filed briefs in other cases (Justice Roggensack)
VII. Discussion of Rules Petition 09-07: In the matter of amendment of SCR ch. 72 relating to expunction (Theresa Owens)

Continued coverage.

Continued coverage.

Continued coverage.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held a hearing on May 10, 2010 at the State Capitol regarding Rules Petitions 10-01 and 10-02: In the matter of the petition to amend Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2) relating to the content of appellate appendices; In the matter of the petition to amend Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(2)(f) relating to content of Appendix to Petitions for Review.

Continuted coverage of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. During their open conference, the Court discussed Rules Petitions 10-01 and 10-02, as well as Rules Petition 09-03: In the matter of the petition to create Wis. Stat. ss. 887.27, 901.08, and SCR 70.155, relating to the submission of evidence originating in a language other than English.

Continued coverage of the Wisconsin Supreme Court open hearing on May 11, 2010 at the State Capitol.

The Supreme Court held and Open Administrative Conference and Rules Hearing on May 10, 2010 at the State Capitol to discuss the following items: Open Conference on Rules Petition 06-04: In the matter of review of amendments to SCR 20:1.15 Safekeeping Property; SCR 20:1.0 Definitions; SCR 21:16 Discipline; and SCR 12.04 Wisconsin Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection.

The Supreme Court held and Open Administrative on April 28, 2010 at the State Capitol to discuss the following items:
I. Discussion of Rules Petition 08-28: In the matter of the petition to create procedures for lawyer support and monitoring and procedures for referrals from the Office of Lawyer Regulation (Julie Rich)
II. Discussion of Rules Petition 09-01: In the matter of amendment of Wis. Stat. §§ 802.10, 804.01, 804.08, 804.09, 804.12, and 805.07 (relating to discovery of electronically stored information) (clean petition filed on March 19, 2010) (Theresa Owens)
III. Should the court proceed with its decision to create a commission to review the Code of Judicial Conduct and its adopted mission statement?

This criminal case examines post-conviction motions, procedures under Wis. Stat. § 974.06, protections under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the right to counsel.

The Supreme Court held and Open Administrative Conference and Rules Hearing on April 27, 2010 at the State Capitol to discuss the following items:
Open Hearing
I. Hearing: Rules Petition 08-11: In the matter of the amendment of Supreme Court Rule 40.08 relating to adverse determination of a bar applicant's character and fitness (Theresa Owens)
II. Hearing: Rules Petition 09-12: In the matter of amendment of Wis. Stat. s. 904.085(4)(e) relating to communications in mediation as evidence (Julie Rich)
III. Open administrative conference: Discussion of 08-11 & 09-12

Continued coverage.

This matter arises from a dispute over an arbitration clause contained in a contract between a nursing home and the wife of one of the home’s residents. Oral argument at this point in the case is expected to address whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to consider the wife’s petition for review; the merits of the issues raised in the petition are not yet before the court.

In this case, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has appealed the referee’s findings that the OLR failed to meet its burden of proof on two counts of misconduct alleged in its complaint. 

In this case, the Supreme Court reviews a judicial conduct panel report and recommendation that a Wisconsin Judicial Commission complaint against Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Gableman be dismissed.

The four counts in this Office of Lawyer Regulation complaint arose from Attorney Ryan D. Lister's representation of Jane A. Haskins in a federal lawsuit against Marathon County and its sheriff. Lister appeals a referee's report concluding that the OLR met its burden proving four counts of misconduct involving duties of diligence, communication, termination of representation, and cooperation with the OLR investigation. The referee recommended a 90-day suspension, restitution of an unearned fee ($135.60), and costs. 

This complicated insurance case results from a car accident. The Supreme Court is asked to review insurance subrogation rights and the proper form of service required in serving a civil complaint.

The Wisconsin Medical Society and David Hoffman, M.D. (health care providers) brought this action against the Secretary of the Department of Administration, Michael L. Morgan. They claim Morgan’s implementation of a 2007-09 state budget provision that transferred $200 million from the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund (the Compensation Fund) to the Medical Assistant Trust Fund (MATF) was illegal. A decision by the Supreme Court could have broad statewide implications on the Compensation Fund and other state funds.

In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is asked to examine the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine and how it applies to a vehicle search in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009).

This case examines "the good-faith exception" to the exclusionary rule and two other issues arising from the conviction of Terion Robinson, who pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver THC, the active ingredient in marijuana.

As in State v. Dearborn, this case examines the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine as applied to a vehicle search and in light of Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009). Gant holds that once an arrestee is safely in custody and unable to gain access to his vehicle, the search of the vehicle incident to arrest doctrine is no longer available.

In this case, the Supreme Court is asked to review the constitutionality of 2007 Act 86, which amended statutes that guide the process used to challenge property tax assessments.

In this case, the Supreme Court is asked to determine if an indigent defendant has a limited right to choose counsel, and whether the defendant in this case should receive a new trial because his request for a new attorney was denied.

This case examines who is responsible for paying property taxes on declared but not yet built condominium units. A decision by the Supreme Court could have broad financial implications for condominium developers and owners statewide.   

This case arises from a dispute between Raymond McMillon, a State Fair Park employee, and Michael Pries, an inmate of the House of Correction who was injured while working at State Fair Park as part of an inmate work crew. The Supreme Court is asked to review law related to public officer immunity and how exceptions to the law may apply to the facts of this case.      

This certification asks the Supreme Court to review if the Legislature violated the constitutional rights of employers and their worker’s compensation carriers by retroactively shifting the burden of ongoing disability compensation from the state to the insurer as provided in Wis Stat. §§ 102.17(4) and 102.66(1), amended effective April 1, 2006.

In this case, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has appealed the referee’s findings that the OLR failed to meet its burden of proof on two counts of misconduct alleged in its complaint. The misconduct alleged in the OLR’s complaint arose out of Stanton E. Thomas’ representation of Thomas Ludwig, who retained Thomas in the fall of 2004. Prior to his retaining Thomas, Ludwig owned 50 percent, or 100 of the 200 units, of Crocus Estates, LLC. Ludwig’s then-business partner, John Ford, owned the other 50-percent interest in Crocus. In 2002 Ludwig had executed a promissory note to a third party. The note was secured by 98 of Ludwig’s Crocus units. Ludwig assigned his two remaining Crocus units to Ford. Ludwig and Ford agreed that if and when the promissory note was satisfied, Ford would assign the 2 units back to Ludwig.           

The Supreme Court held and Open Administrative Conference and Rules Hearing on March 8, 2010 at the State Capitol to discuss the following items:
Open Hearing
I. Rules Petition 07-09: In the matter of the Definition of the Practice of Law and the Administration of a Rule Defining the Practice of Law
Discussion
I. Discussion of Rules Petition 07-09
Matters Held Over
II. Should the court proceed with its decision to create a commission to review the Code of Judicial Conduct and its adopted mission statement?
III. Discussion of Rules Petition 06-04: In the matter of review of amendments to SCR 20:1.15 Safekeeping Property; SCR 20:1.0 Definitions; SCR 21:16 Discipline; and SCR 12.04 Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (review of amendments adopted 5/2/07, effective 7/1/07) (Theresa Owens)
IV. Discussion of Rules Petition 08-28: In the matter of the petition to create procedures for lawyer support and monitoring and procedures for referrals from the Office of Lawyer Regulation (Julie Rich)
V. Discussion of Rules Petition 09-02: In the matter of the petition to amend Supreme Court Rule 72.01 regarding record retention (Julie Rich) (draft order circulated 2/25/10; awaiting court approval)
VI. Discussion of Justice Roggensack’s proposal to change procedure for hearing petitions for rules—draft circulated to interested persons
VII. Discussion of possible ethics issues related to researching e-filed briefs in other cases (Justice Roggensack)

Continued coverage.

Continued coverage.

This certification asks the Supreme Court to examine two issues: 1) whether Wisconsin law recognizes a bad-faith claim by an insured against its liability insurer for failure to reasonably defend the insured’s unusually high deductible, and; 2) whether attorneys’ fees in a bad-faith action must be decided by a jury, or awarded post-trial by the trial court.

The issue presented in the certification was whether the defendants, who are or were uphill landowners from the Glen and Louann Hocking, were liable to the Hockings for damages allegedly caused by storm water running from the defendants' property to the Hockings' property.  In a decision issued July 9, 2009, this court concluded that the defendants were not liable because they had no duty to abate the alleged nuisance. Now, the Supreme Court is asked to review Wis. Stat. § 893.89, the 10-year "statue of repose" for actions for injury resulting from improvements to real property.

In this asbestos-related case, the Supreme Court is asked to clarify several issues related to negligence and the definition of extra-hazardous work.

In this case, the Supreme Court is asked to review the applicability of the "good-faith exception" to the exclusionary rule as it relates to evidence gathered as a result of an improperly issued arrest warrant.

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court is asked to consider whether a defendant’s constitutional rights or Wisconsin Statutes were violated when police placed a global positioning system (GPS) device on his vehicle and recorded its movements.       

In this certification, the Supreme Court is asked to decide if Wis. Stat. § 632.895(7) permits an insurer to exclude maternity coverage for a surrogate mother and how much deference should be given to a decision by the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI).

The Supreme Court held an Open Administrative Conference & Rules Hearing on February 24, 2010 at the State Capitol to discuss the following items:
Open Hearing
I. Rules Petition 09-07: In the matter of amendment of Chapter 72 of the Supreme Court Rules relating to expunction
Discussion
I. Discussion of Rules Petition 09-07
II. Should the court proceed with its decision to create a commission to review the Code of Judicial Conduct and its adopted mission statement?
III. Discussion of Rules Petition 06-04: In the matter of review of amendments to SCR 20:1.15 Safekeeping Property; SCR 20:1.0 Definitions; SCR 21:16 Discipline; and SCR 12.04 Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (review of amendments adopted 5/2/07, effective 7/1/07) (Theresa Owens)
IV. Discussion of Rules Petition 08-28: In the matter of the petition to create procedures for lawyer support and monitoring and procedures for referrals from the Office of Lawyer Regulation (Julie Rich)
V. Discussion of Rules Petition 09-02: In the matter of the petition to amend Supreme Court Rule 72.01 regarding record retention (Julie Rich)
VI. Discussion of Justice Roggensack’s proposal to change procedure for hearing petitions for rules—draft circulated to interested persons
VII. Discussion of possible ethics issues related to researching e-filed briefs in other cases (Justice Roggensack)

Continued coverage.

Continued coverage.

This case involves a dispute over a $6.3 million sale of vacant commercial land in Brown County. The Supreme Court is asked to examine the implications of “specific performance” as a court-ordered remedy when the terms of a real estate sales contract aren’t fulfilled by a buyer.

This insurance dispute, which has spawned two previous appeals, asks the Supreme Court to examine an insurer’s 'duty to defend' under an excess umbrella liability policy in a business insurance context.

In this case, the Supreme Court is asked to review if the right to install a pier was granted by an easement that did not address pier construction, and where no pier had been installed in the easement during the two decades after the easement went into effect.

This case examines whether the use of an easement to access a parcel adjacent to the property for which the access easement was intended, constitutes a misuse of the easement.

In this bypass of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court is asked to review who bears the tax liability for payable-on-death (POD) accounts.

In this case, the Supreme Court is asked to clarify the meaning of “hit-and-run” in an uninsured motorist policy, and in an insurance statute, as applied to the facts of this case.

In this case, the Supreme Court is asked to clarify law involving uninsured motorist policies when a vehicle involved in an accident is not insured but the driver is insured under another policy.

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court examines the threshold necessary for a defendant in a sexual assault case to introduce evidence at trial of the alleged victim’s allegation of sexual assault in a previous case. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal that occurs before the trial court’s ruling on the entire case.

In this case, the Supreme Court is asked to examine Wis. Stat. 706.10(3) and whether sand extraction rights contained in a 1978 deed applied only to the property owner at the time or also to heirs and assignees.

This case asks the Supreme Court to examine whether punitive damages may be awarded to a plaintiff who sought and obtained equitable relief and whether the plaintiff’s attorney breached his fiduciary duty to them.

This criminal case examines whether a new trial is required in a case where a trial court denied the defendant’s request to represent himself in the trial court without conducting a Klessig colloquy, pursuant to State v. Klessig.

The State Supreme Court held an Open Hearing on January 21, 2010 at the State Capitol to discuss:
I. Rules Petition 09-01: In the matter of amendment of Wis. Stat. §§ 802.10, 804.08, 804.09, 804.12, and 805.07 (relating to discovery of electronically stored information).

The State Supreme Court held an Open Hearing on January 21, 2010 at the State Capitol to discuss:
I. Rules Petition 09-01: In the matter of amendment of Wis. Stat. §§ 802.10, 804.08, 804.09, 804.12, and 805.07 (relating to discovery of electronically stored information).

The State Supreme Court held an Open Hearing on January 21, 2010 at the State Capitol to discuss:
I. Rules Petition 09-01: In the matter of amendment of Wis. Stat. §§ 802.10, 804.08, 804.09, 804.12, and 805.07 (relating to discovery of electronically stored information).

The State Supreme Court held an Open Hearing on January 21, 2010 at the State Capitol to discuss:
I. Discussion of Rules Petition 09-01.
II. Discussion of Rules Petitions 08-16, 08-25, 09-10, & 09-11 (recusal).
III. Justice Roggensack’s proposal to change procedure for hearing petitions for rules.

Oral arguments from the Wisconsin State Supreme Court case of Volvo Trucks v. Wausau Truck Center on January 7, 2010 at the State Capitol. In this review of an administrative law judge's decision, the Supreme Court has been asked to clarify the definition of the statutory term "cure," and to determine whether a truck manufacturer unfairly canceled a dealer's franchise agreement.

Oral arguments from the Wisconsin State Supreme Court case of State v. Pinkard on January 7, 2010 at the State Capitol. This criminal case examines the law as it relates to the "community caretaker" function of police and constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Oral arguments from the Wisconsin State Supreme Court case of OLR v. Michael F. Hupy on January 6, 2010 at the State Capitol. In this lawyer discipline proceeding, Attorney Michael F. Hupy appeals a referee's report and recommendation in which it was concluded that Hupy had committed three violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. The Supreme Court will determine whether Hupy committed these violations and what the level of discipline should be.

Oral arguments from the Wisconsin State Supreme Court case of Maryland Arms Ltd. Partnership v. Connell on January 6, 2010 at the State Capitol. In this landlord-tenant dispute, the Supreme Court is asked to examine whether a landlord and tenant may contractually agree to affix liability on a tenant for any property damage that, while caused by an act of the tenant, was not caused by the tenant's negligence or improper use of the leased premises.

Oral arguments from the Wisconsin State Supreme Court case of Racine County v. Oracular Milwaukee on January 6, 2010 at the State Capitol. This breach-of-contract case involving a software purchase examines the definition of "professional services" and whether expert testimony is required under certain circumstances.

Oral arguments from the Wisconsin State Supreme Court case of Admanco Inc. (Micael Polsky, receiver) v. 700 Stanton Drive, LLC on January 5, 2010 at the State Capitol. This case examines letters of credit under Wisconsin Statute Chapter 128, and the interaction of laws, and the legal relationships among parties, involved in real estate agreement and bankruptcy proceeding.

Oral arguments from the Wisconsin State Supreme Court case of Dawn M. Sands v. Menard, Inc. on January 5, 2010 at the State Capitol. This case examines whether reinstatement of an employee as provided in an arbitration award is required when neither the employer nor former employee requested it as a remedy.

Oral arguments from the Wisconsin State Supreme Court case of State v. McGuire on January 5, 2010 at the State Capitol. This case examines the statute of limitations' tolling provision and whether a 36-year delay in prosecuting sex assault charges against a priest violated his rights to equal protection and due process or the privileges and immunity clauses of the U.S. Constitution.