WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT

 

JULY 2009

 

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

 

Opinions Issued by the Court

 

            The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 29 cases in July.  Information about these opinions, including the Court’s dispositions and the names of the authoring justices, can be found on the attached table.

 

                                                                                              July 2009          Term to Date

 

Total number of cases resolved by opinion ..............................      29                      87

      Attorney disciplinary cases.................................................        6                      23

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

      Civil cases.........................................................................      21                      43

      Criminal cases ..................................................................        2                      21

           

 

Petitions for Review

 

            A total of 69 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 July, the Supreme Court disposed of 62 petitions for review, of which 2 petitions were granted.  The Supreme Court currently has 225 petitions for review pending.

 

                                                                                            July 2009            Term to Date

 

Petitions for Review filed..........................................................     69                     718

      Civil cases.........................................................................     35                     363

      Criminal cases...................................................................     34                     355


 

Petition for Review dispositions................................................     62                     690

      Civil cases (petitions granted).............................................     25  (0)               346  (28)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted).......................................     37  (2)               344  (16)

 

 

Petitions for Bypass

 

            In July, the Supreme Court received 2 petitions for bypass and disposed of 2 petitions for bypass, of which 1 was granted.  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 2 petitions for bypass pending.

 

                                                                                            July 2009            Term to Date

 

Petitions for Bypass filed..........................................................       2                      7

      Civil cases.........................................................................       1                      5

      Criminal cases...................................................................       1                      2

 

Petition for Bypass dispositions................................................       2                    11    

      Civil cases (petitions granted).............................................       1  (0)                8  (0)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted).......................................       1  (1)                3  (1)

 

 

Requests for Certification

 

            During July 2009, the Supreme Court received 2 requests for certification and disposed of no requests 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 2 requests for certification pending.

 

                                                                                            July 2009            Term to Date

 

Requests for Certification filed..................................................       2                    10

      Civil cases.........................................................................       0                      7

      Criminal cases...................................................................       2                      3

 

Request for Certification dispositions........................................       0                    10    

      Civil cases (requests granted).............................................       0  (0)                8  (6)

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

 

 

 

           


Regulatory Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions

 

            During the month, a total of 4 matters within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Court (bar admission, lawyer discipline, and judicial discipline) were filed.  The Supreme Court also received 8 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.  One original action was 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 34 regulatory matters and 17 petitions for supervisory writ pending.

 

                                                                                             July 2009           Term to Date

 

Filings

 

Attorney discipline...................................................................        4                   46

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ..................................................        8                   62

Other (including Original Actions).............................................        2                   10

 

Dispositions by Order

 

Attorney discipline...................................................................        0                   19

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ..................................................        3                   52

Other (including Original Actions).............................................        1                   12


DECISIONS BY THE

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

 

OPINIONS ISSUED DURING JULY 2009

 

 

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2007AP000869-D

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v. Thomas J. Molinaro

60 Day Suspension

Per Curiam[1]

Bradley, J. did not participate.

 

07/01/2009

2008AP003016-D

OLR v. James T. Winch

Three Year Suspension

Per Curiam

 

07/03/2009

2007AP002135-D

OLR v. Neil R. McKloskey

60 Day Suspension

Per Curiam

 

07/07/2009

2006AP001191-D and 2007AP001908-D

OLR v. Willie J. Nunnery

Three Year Suspension

Per Curiam

 

07/21/2009

2007AP2935-D

OLR v. Jeffrey Reitz

90 Day Suspension

Per Curiam

 

07/23/2009

 

 

 

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2007AP000308

Tywanda F. Luckett v. Aaron C. Bodner, M.D.

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Abrahamson, C.J.

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

Dissent:  Prosser, J.

Bradley, J. did not participate.

 

07/07/2009

2007AP000541

Estate of Robert V. Genrich v. OHIC Insurance Company

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Roggensack, J.

Concurrence/Dissent:  Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J. and Crooks, J.

Dissent/Concurrence:  Crooks, J., joined by Abrahamson, C.J. and Bradley, J.

 

07/07/2009

2006AP002910

Kenneth J. Behrendt v. Gulf Underwriters Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

Concurrence:  Abrahamson, C.J.

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

 

07/09/2009

2007AP001754

Glen D. Hocking v. City of Dodgeville

Circuit court order affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Ziegler, J.

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

Crooks, J. did not participate.

 

07/09/2009

2007AP001799

Douglas Osborn v. Harold Dennison

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Prosser, J.

 

07/09/2009

2007AP002382-CR

State v. Jason L. McClaren

Court of Appeals decision reversed and remanded.

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

Dissent:  Bradley, J.

Abrahamson, C.J. did not participate.

 

07/09/2009

2006AP002599

Gregory G. Phelps v. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Inc.

Court of Appeals decision reversed and

cause remanded to the circuit court.

Majority Opinion:  Roggensack, J.

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

 

07/10/2009

2007AP001992

The Farmers Automobile Insurance Association v. Union Pacific Railway Company

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Gableman, J.

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

 

07/10/2009

2006AP002670

Ruben Baez Godoy v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Bradley, J.

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

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

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

Roggensack, J. did not participate.

 

07/14/2009

2006AP002933

Kara Horst v. Deere & Company

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Gableman, J.

Concurrence:  Crooks, J.

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

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

Ziegler, J. did not participate.

 

07/14/2009

2007AP000617

Star Direct, Inc. v. Eugene Dal Pra

Court of Appeals decision affirmed in

part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Majority Opinion:  Gableman, J.

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

Dissent:  Abrahamson, C.J.

 

07/14/2009

2007AP001638

Christine L. Tensfeldt v. F. William Haberman

Circuit Court order affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.

Majority Opinion:  Bradley, J.

Concurrence/Dissent:  Roggensack, J., joined by Ziegler, J.

Gableman, J. did not participate.

 

07/14/2009

2006AP003003

American Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. David Golke

Circuit Court order and judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Majority Opinion:  Gableman, J.

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

 

07/15/2009

2007AP001160

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. DOA

Circuit Court judgment affirmed and cause remanded to the circuit court.

Majority Opinion:  Roggensack, J.

Concurrence:  Bradley, J.

Dissent:  Abrahamson, C.J.

 

07/15/2009

2007AP002584

Robert Zellner v. Daryl Herrick

Appeal dismissed; Circuit Court order affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

Dissent:  Roggensack, J.

 

07/15/2009

2006AP002866

City of Milwaukee Post No. 2874 v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee

Court of Appeals decision reversed.

Majority Opinion:  Abrahamson, C.J.

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

Dissent:  Prosser, J., joined by Crooks and Roggensack, J.J.

 

07/17/2009

2006AP000385

Harold Umansky v. ABC Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals decision affirmed and remanded.

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

Concurrence:  Crooks, J., joined by Prosser, J.

Concurrence:  Prosser, J., joined by Crooks, J.

Dissent:  Ziegler, J., joined by Roggensack and Gableman, J.J.

 

07/17/2009

2007AP001396

Kelly J. Harvot v. Solo Cup Company

Circuit Court decision and order affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Prosser, J.

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

 

07/17/2009

2008AP001913-CQ

Bruce A. Tammi v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

Certified questions from the United States

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit answered, in part, and cause remanded.

Majority Opinion:  Prosser, J.

 

07/17/2009

2006AP000803

Milton J. Christensen v. Michael J. Sullivan

Court of Appeals decision reversed.

Majority Opinion:  Prosser, J.

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

 

07/21/2009

2007AP000496

Coulee Catholic Schools v. LIRC

Court of Appeals decision reversed and remanded.

Majority Opinion:  Gableman, J.

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

 

07/21/2009

2007AP001042-CR

State v. Tony Payano

Court of Appeals decision reversed.

Majority Opinion:  Prosser, J.

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

 

07/21/2009

2007AP000619

Richard Bubb v. William Brusky, M.D.

Court of Appeals decision reversed and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court.

Majority Opinion:  Prosser, J.

Ziegler, J. did not participate.

 

07/24/2009

 



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