WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT

 

FEBRUARY 2010

 

            This statistical report presents information about the case filings and dispositions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the month of February 2010 and to date for the term that began on September 1, 2009.

 

Opinions Issued by the Court

 

            The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 6 cases 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 2010      Term to Date

 

Total number of cases resolved by opinion ..............................        6                      19

      Attorney disciplinary cases.................................................        4                      16

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

      Civil cases.........................................................................        0                        1

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

           

 

Petitions for Review

 

            A total of 44 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 30 petitions for review, of which no petitions were granted.  The Supreme Court currently has 209 petitions for review pending.

 

                                                                                           February 2010       Term to Date

 

Petitions for Review filed..........................................................     44                     352

      Civil cases.........................................................................     21                     175

      Criminal cases...................................................................     23                     177


 

Petition for Review dispositions................................................     30                     382

      Civil cases (petitions granted).............................................     12  (0)               195  (22)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted).......................................     18  (0)               187  (10)

 

 

Petitions for Bypass

 

            In February, the Supreme Court received no petitions for bypass and disposed of 1 petition 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 1 petition for bypass pending.

 

                                                                                         February 2010        Term to Date

 

Petitions for Bypass filed..........................................................       0                      9

      Civil cases.........................................................................       0                      9

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

 

Petition for Bypass dispositions................................................       1                    11    

      Civil cases (petitions granted).............................................       1  (0)                9  (1)

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

 

 

Requests for Certification

 

            During February 2010, the Supreme Court received one request for certification and disposed of one 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 2 requests for certification pending.

 

                                                                                         February 2010        Term to Date

 

Requests for Certification filed..................................................       1                      7

      Civil cases.........................................................................       1                      6

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

 

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

      Civil cases (requests granted).............................................       1  (1)                5  (5)

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

 

 

 

           


Regulatory Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions

 

            During the month, a total of 2 matters within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Court (bar admission, lawyer discipline, and judicial discipline) were filed.  The Supreme Court also received 5 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 26 regulatory matters and 15 petitions for supervisory writ pending.

 

                                                                                          February 2010       Term to Date

 

Filings

 

Attorney discipline...................................................................        2                   16

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ..................................................        5                   24

Other (including Original Actions).............................................        1                     4

 

Dispositions by Order

 

Attorney discipline...................................................................        1                     7

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ..................................................        1                   32

Other (including Original Actions).............................................        1                     7


DECISIONS BY THE

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

 

OPINIONS ISSUED DURING FEBRUARY 2010

 

 

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2008AP002817-D

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v. Douglas Batt

Public Reprimand

Per Curiam[1]

 

02/03/2010

2009AP000283-D

OLR v. Benjamin J. Harris

60 Day Suspension

Per Curiam

 

02/04/2010

2007AP001083-D

OLR v. Alan D. Eisenberg

License Revoked

Per Curiam

 

02/18/2010

2009AP001099-D

OLR v. Daynel L. Hooker

6 Month Suspension

Per Curiam

 

02/26/2010

 

 

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2007AP001898-CR

State v. Richard M. Fischer

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

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

 

02/02/2010

2007AP001378-CR

State v. Jermichael James Carroll

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

Dissent:  Abrahamson, C.J.

Dissent:  Prosser, J.

02/03/2010

 



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