WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT

 

FEBRUARY 2009

 

            This statistical report presents information about the case filings and dispositions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the month of February 2009 and to date for the term that began on September 1, 2008.

 

Opinions Issued by the Court

 

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

 

                                                                                          February 2009      Term to Date

 

Total number of cases resolved by opinion ..............................        3                      21

      Attorney disciplinary cases.................................................        1                        8

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

      Civil cases.........................................................................        1                        9

      Criminal cases ..................................................................        1                        4

           

 

Petitions for Review

 

            A total of 58 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 February, the Supreme Court disposed of 51 petitions for review, of which 5 petitions were granted.  The Supreme Court currently has 200 petitions for review pending.

 

                                                                                          February 2009      Term to Date

 

Petitions for Review filed..........................................................     58                     365

      Civil cases.........................................................................     27                     179

      Criminal cases...................................................................     31                     186


 

Petition for Review dispositions................................................     51                     361

      Civil cases (petitions granted).............................................     30  (2)               198  (20)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted).......................................     21  (3)               163  (11)

 

 

Petitions for Bypass

 

            The Supreme Court received no petitions for bypass and disposed of 3 petitions for bypass in February.  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 no petitions for bypass pending.

 

                                                                                          February 2009      Term to Date

 

Petitions for Bypass filed..........................................................       0                      3

      Civil cases.........................................................................       0                      3

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

 

Petition for Bypass dispositions................................................       3                      9    

      Civil cases (petitions granted).............................................       3  (0)                7  (0)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted).......................................       0  (0)                2  (0)

 

 

Requests for Certification

 

            During February 2009, the Supreme Court received 1 request for certification and disposed of 1 request for certification, of which 1 request was granted.  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 1 request for certification pending.

 

                                                                                          February 2009      Term to Date

 

Requests for Certification filed..................................................       1                      5

      Civil cases.........................................................................       1                      4

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

 

Request for Certification dispositions........................................       1                      6    

      Civil cases (requests granted).............................................       0  (0)                4  (3)

      Criminal cases (requests granted).......................................       1  (1)                2  (2)

 

 

 

           


Regulatory Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions

 

            During the month, a total of 8 matters within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Court (bar admission, lawyer discipline, and judicial discipline) were filed.  The Supreme Court also received 6 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 37 regulatory matters and 9 petitions for supervisory writ pending.

 

                                                                                          February 2009      Term to Date

 

Filings

 

Attorney discipline...................................................................        8                   24

Judicial discipline.....................................................................        0                     1

Bar admission..........................................................................        0                     1

Petitions for Supervisory Writ..................................................        6                   29

Other (including Original Actions).............................................        0                     5

 

Dispositions by Order

 

Attorney discipline...................................................................        4                   13

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ..................................................        8                   27

Other (including Original Actions).............................................        2                     8


DECISIONS BY THE

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

 

OPINIONS ISSUED DURING FEBRUARY 2009

 

 

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2008AP002868-D

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v. Scott E. Selmer

Public Reprimand

Per Curiam[1]

 

02/17/2009

 

 

 

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2006AP001506

Joseph Blunt, Sr. v. Medtronic, Inc.

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Roggensack, J.

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

 

02/17/2009

2007AP000005-CR

State v. Dhosi J. Ndina

Court of Appeals decision affirmed and remanded.

Majority Opinion:  Abrahamson, C.J.

Concurrence:  Prosser, J., joined by Ziegler and Gableman, J.J.

 

02/26/2009

 

 



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