WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT

 

MARCH 2011

 

††††††††††† This statistical report presents information about the case filings and dispositions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the month of March 2011 and to date for the term that began on September 1, 2010.

 

Opinions Issued by the Court

 

††††††††††† The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 4 cases in March.Information about these opinions, including the Courtís dispositions and the names of the authoring justices, can be found on the attached table.

 

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††† March 2011††††††† Term to Date

 

Total number of cases resolved by opinion .............................. †††††† 4††††††††††††††††††††† 34

††††† Attorney disciplinary cases................................................. †††††† 0††††††††††††††††††††† 17

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

††††† Civil cases......................................................................... †††††† 4††††††††††††††††††††† 13

††††† Criminal cases .................................................................. †††††† 0††††††††††††††††††††††† 4

††††† †††††

 

Petitions for Review

 

††††††††††† A total of 81 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 Courtís jurisdiction is discretionary, meaning that review is granted in selected cases only.In March, the Supreme Court disposed of 78 petitions for review, of which 7 petitions were granted.The Supreme Court currently has 236 petitions for review pending.

 

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††† March 2011†††††††† Term to Date

 

Petitions for Review filed.......................................................... ††† 81†††††††††††††††††††† 490

††††† Civil cases......................................................................... ††† 40†††††††††††††††††††† 249

††††† Criminal cases................................................................... ††† 41†††††††††††††††††††† 241


 

Petition for Review dispositions................................................ ††† 78†††††††††††††††††††† 449

††††† Civil cases (petitions granted)............................................. ††† 42(5)†††††††††††††† 234(36)

††††† Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................... ††† 36(2)†††††††††††††† 215(16)

 

 

Petitions for Bypass†††††††††††††††††

 

††††††††††† In March, the Supreme Court received no petitions for bypass and disposed of 2 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 no petitions for bypass pending.

 

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††† March 2011††††††††† Term to Date

 

Petitions for Bypass filed.......................................................... ††††† 0††††††††††††††††††††† 7

††††† Civil cases......................................................................... ††††† 0††††††††††††††††††††† 5

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

 

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

††††† Civil cases (petitions granted)............................................. ††††† 1(0)††††††††††††††† 7(0)

††††† Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................... ††††† 1(1)††††††††††††††† 4(1)

 

 

Requests for Certification

 

††††††††††† During March 2011, the Supreme Court received 1 request 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 3 requests for certification pending.

 

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††† March 2011†††††††† Term to Date

 

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

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

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

 

Request for Certification dispositions........................................ ††††† 0††††††††††††††††††††† 4††††

††††† Civil cases (requests granted)............................................. ††††† 0(0)††††††††††††††† 2(1)

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

 

 

 

†††††††††††


Regulatory Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions

 

††††††††††† During the month, 5 matters within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Court (bar admission, lawyer discipline, and judicial discipline) were filed and no cases (disciplinary) were reopened.The Supreme Court also received 3 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 ďOpinions Issued by the CourtĒ 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 10 writs pending.

 

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††† March 2011††††††† Term to Date

 

Filings

 

Attorney discipline (including reopened cases).......................... †††††† 5†††††††††††††††††† 42

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ (other writs)............................... †††††† 7†††††††††††††††††† 30

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

 

Dispositions by Order

 

Attorney discipline................................................................... †††††† 3†††††††††††††††††††† 6

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ (other writs)............................... †††††† 6†††††††††††††††††† 33

Other (including Original Actions)............................................. †††††† 0†††††††††††††††††††† 8

 


DECISIONS BY THE

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

 

OPINIONS ISSUED DURING MARCH 2011

 

 

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

 

Docket No.††††††††††††††††††††††† Title†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Date

 

2007AP0203

Polsky v. Virnich

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Ziegler, J. did not participate.

 

03/02/2011

2008AP3182

Ottman v. Town of Primrose

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion:Bradley, J.

 

03/22/2011

2008AP3235

Andersen v. Depít of Natural Resources

Reversed.

Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J.

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

 

03/23/2011

2009AP0524

Metropolitan Associates v. City of Milwaukee

Reversed.

Majority Opinion: Gableman, J.

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

 

03/25/2011