WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT

 

NOVEMBER 2010

 

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

 

Opinions Issued by the Court

 

            The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 3 cases in November.  Information about these opinions, including the Court’s dispositions and the names of the authoring justices, can be found on the attached table.

 

                                                                                             November 2010  Term to Date

 

Total number of cases resolved by opinion ..............................        3                      13

      Attorney disciplinary cases.................................................        1                      11

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

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

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

           

 

Petitions for Review

 

            A total of 72 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 November, the Supreme Court disposed of 7 petitions for review, of which 2 petitions were granted.  The Supreme Court currently has 243 petitions for review pending.

 

                                                                                             November 2010  Term to Date

 

Petitions for Review filed..........................................................     72                     206

      Civil cases.........................................................................     31                     104

      Criminal cases...................................................................     41                     102


 

Petition for Review dispositions................................................       7                     155

      Civil cases (petitions granted).............................................       3  (2)                 86  (21)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted).......................................       4  (0)                 69  (7)

 

 

Petitions for Bypass

 

            In November, the Supreme Court received 1 petition for bypass and disposed of no 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 7 petitions for bypass pending.

 

                                                                                           November 2010    Term to Date

 

Petitions for Bypass filed..........................................................       1                      6

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

      Criminal cases...................................................................       0                      2

 

Petition for Bypass dispositions................................................       0                      3    

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

      Criminal cases (petitions granted).......................................       0  (0)                1  (0)

 

 

Requests for Certification

 

            During November 2010, the Supreme Court received no 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 1 request for certification pending.

 

                                                                                            November 2010   Term to Date

 

Requests for Certification filed..................................................       0                      1

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

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

 

Request for Certification dispositions........................................       0                      2    

      Civil cases (requests granted).............................................       0  (0)                1  (0)

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

 

 

 

           


Regulatory Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions

 

            During the month, 2 matters within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Court (bar admission, lawyer discipline, and judicial discipline) were filed and 4 cases (disciplinary) were reopened.  The Supreme Court also received 2 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 26 regulatory matters and 10 petitions for supervisory writ pending.

 

                                                                                             November 2010  Term to Date

 

Filings

 

Attorney discipline (including reopened cases)..........................        5                   20

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ (other writs)...............................        7                   12

Other (including Original Actions).............................................        0                    2

 

Dispositions by Order

 

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

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ..................................................        3                   15

Other (including Original Actions).............................................        0                     3


DECISIONS BY THE

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

 

OPINIONS ISSUED DURING NOVEMBER 2010

 

 

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2010AP000260-D

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v.

Peter T. Elliott

Revoked

Per Curiam[1]

 

11/03/2010

2008AP001968-CR

State v. Patrick R. Patterson

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

 

11/17/2010

2009AP000246

Deanne Phillips v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n

Affirmed.

Per Curiam

Ziegler, J. did not participate.

 

11/19/2010

 



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