WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT

 

June 2014

 

            This statistical report presents information about the case filings and dispositions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the month of June 2014 and to date for the term that began on September 1, 2013.

 

Opinions Issued by the Court

 

            The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 15 cases in June.  Information about these opinions, including the Court’s dispositions and the names of the authoring justices, can be found on the attached table.

 

                                                                                             June 2014           Term to Date

 

Total number of cases resolved by opinion ...........................      15                      59

      Attorney disciplinary cases..............................................      10                      36

      Judicial disciplinary cases................................................        0                        0

      Civil cases........................................................................        4                      16

      Criminal cases .................................................................        1                        7

   

 

Petitions for Review

 

            A total of 49 petitions for review were filed during the month.  A petition for review asks the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.  The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is discretionary, meaning that review is granted in selected cases only.  In June, the Supreme Court disposed of 65 petitions for review, of which 3 petitions were granted.  The Supreme Court currently has 252 petitions for review pending.

 

                                                                                                        June 2014            Term to Date

 

Petitions for Review filed......................................................     49                     646

      Civil cases........................................................................     23                     308

      Criminal cases..................................................................     26                     338

 

Petition for Review dispositions............................................     65                     758

      Civil cases (petitions granted)..........................................     23  (0)               378  (27)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................     42  (3)               380  (35)

 

 

Petitions for Bypass

 

            In June, the Supreme Court received 2 petitions for bypass and disposed of 0 petitions for bypass.  In a petition for bypass, a party requests that the Supreme Court take jurisdiction of an appeal or other proceeding pending in the Court of Appeals.  A matter appropriate for bypass is usually one which meets one or more of the criteria for review by the Supreme Court and one the Supreme Court concludes it will ultimately choose to consider regardless of how the Court of Appeals might decide the issues.  A petition for bypass may also be granted where there is a clear need to hasten the ultimate appellate decision.  The Supreme Court currently has 13 petitions for bypass pending.

 

                                                                                           June 2014             Term to Date

 

Petitions for Bypass filed......................................................       2                    19

      Civil cases........................................................................       2                    16

      Criminal cases..................................................................       0                      3

 

 

Petition for Bypass dispositions............................................       0                    14    

      Civil cases (petitions granted)..........................................       0  (0)              10  (0)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................       0  (0)                4  (0)

 

 

Requests for Certification

 

            During June 2014, the Supreme Court received 0 requests for certification and disposed of 1 request for certification.  In a request for certification, the Court of Appeals asks the Supreme Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction before the Court of Appeals hears the matter.  A request for certification is decided on the basis of the same criteria as a petition to bypass.  The Supreme Court currently has 0 requests for certification pending.

 

                                                                                            June 2014            Term to Date

 

Requests for Certification filed.............................................       0                      3

      Civil cases........................................................................       0                      2

      Criminal cases..................................................................       0                      1

 

 

Request for Certification dispositions...................................       1                      7    

      Civil cases (requests granted)..........................................       1  (1)                4  (4)

      Criminal cases (requests granted)....................................       0  (0)                3  (1)

 

 

Regulatory Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions

 

            During the month, a total of 3 matter within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Court (bar admission, lawyer discipline, and judicial discipline) were filed and 1 such case was reopened.  The Supreme Court also received 0 petitions for supervisory writ, which ask the Supreme Court to order the Court of Appeals or a circuit court to take a certain action in a case.  No original actions were filed.  An original action is a petition asking the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction over a particular matter.  When an opinion is issued in these cases, the disposition is included in “Opinions Issued by the Court” above; otherwise, the case is disposed of by order and is included in the totals below.  The Supreme Court currently has 27 regulatory matters and 24 petitions for supervisory writ pending.

 

                                                                                             June 2014           Term to Date

 

Filings

 

Attorney discipline (including reopened cases).....................        3                   50

Judicial discipline...................................................................        0                     0

Bar admission........................................................................        1                     1

Petitions for Supervisory Writ...............................................      11                   64

Other (including Original Actions)........................................        0                     6

 

Dispositions by Order

 

Attorney discipline................................................................        0                     3

Judicial discipline...................................................................        0                     0

Bar admission........................................................................        0                     0

Petitions for Supervisory Writ...............................................        3                   61

Other (including Original Actions)........................................        0                   10


DECISIONS BY THE

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

 

OPINIONS ISSUED DURING June 2014

 

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2013AP490-D

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v. Colleen R. T.

License Suspended

Per Curiam[1]

 

06/03/2014

2011AP3009-D

OLR v. Roger G. Merry

Complaint Dismissed

Per Curiam

Concur/Dissent in Part: Abrahamson, C.J., joined by Bradley, J.

 

06/04/2014

2011AP2758-D

OLR v. Kenneth R. Kratz

License Suspended

Per Curiam

Concur:  Abrahamson, C.J.

Concur/Dissent in Part:  Prosser, J.

 

06/06/2014

2011AP2760-D

OLR v. Daniel W. Johns, Jr.

Complaint Dismissed

Per Curiam

Dissent: Abrahamson, C.J.

Bradley, J. did not participate.

 

06/06/2014

2012AP60-D

OLR v. Tim Osicka

License Suspended

Per Curiam

Concur: Abrahamson, C.J.

Dissent:  Prosser, J.

Bradley, J. did not participate.

 

06/06/2014

2013AP434-D

 

 

OLR v. Tim Osicka

License Suspended

Per Curiam

Concur: Abrahamson, C.J.

Dissent:  Prosser, J.

Bradley, J. did not participate.

 

06/06/2014

2012AP2361-D

OLR v. William J. Grogan

License Revoked

Per Curiam

Prosser, J. did not participate

 

06/19/2014

2013AP948-D

OLR v. Elizabeth A. Ewald-Herrick

Public Reprimand

Per Curiam

 

06/19/2014

2014AP28-D

OLR v. Daynel L. Hooker

License Revoked

Per Curiam

 

06/19/2014

2012AP484-D

OLR v. Andrew J. Bryant

License Suspended

Per Curiam

Concur:  Roggensack, J.

 

06/24/2014

 

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2012AP320

Sharon R. Waranka v. Wadena Insurance Company

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Bradley, J.

 

06/03/2014

2011AP2833-CR

State v. Jacqueline R. Robinson

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Gableman, J.

Concur:  Prosser, J.

Dissent:  Abrahamson, C.J., joined by Bradley, J.

 

06/10/2014

2012AP1644

Rachelle R. Jackson v. Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corp.

Court of Appeals decision reversed.

Majority Opinion: Crooks, J.

Prosser J. did not participate.

 

06/10/2014

2012AP2085

Kelli Brandenburg v. Robert Luethi

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Crooks, J.

Concur/Dissent in Part:  Abrahamson, C.J., joined by Bradley, J. and Prosser J.

 

06/12/2014

2012AP378-W

Lorenzo D. Kyles v. William Pollard

Court of Appeals decision reversed and remanded.

Majority Opinion: Bradley, J.

06/17/2014

 



[1] “Per Curiam” means “by the Court.”  Opinions issued per curiam are handed down by the Court as a whole.