WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT

 

MAY 2011

 

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

 

Opinions Issued by the Court

 

            The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 10 cases in May.  Information about these opinions, including the Court’s dispositions and the names of the authoring justices, can be found on the attached table.

 

                                                                                             May 2011           Term to Date

 

Total number of cases resolved by opinion ...........................      10                      48

      Attorney disciplinary cases..............................................        1                      19

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

      Civil cases........................................................................        7                      21

      Criminal cases .................................................................        2                        8

           

 

Petitions for Review

 

            A total of 54 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 May, the Supreme Court disposed of 79 petitions for review, of which 4 petitions were granted.  The Supreme Court currently has 179 petitions for review pending.

 

                                                                                             May 2011           Term to Date

 

Petitions for Review filed......................................................     54                     592

      Civil cases........................................................................     24                     295

      Criminal cases..................................................................     30                     297


 

Petition for Review dispositions............................................     79                     608

      Civil cases (petitions granted)..........................................     39  (2)               323  (41)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................     40  (2)               285  (20)

 

 

Petitions for Bypass               

 

            In May, the Supreme Court received no petitions 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 no petitions for bypass pending.

 

                                                                                           May 2011             Term to Date

 

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

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

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

 

Petition for Bypass dispositions............................................       0                    11    

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

      Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................       0  (0)                4  (1)

 

 

Requests for Certification

 

            During May 2011, the Supreme Court received 2 requests for certification and disposed of 1 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 4 requests for certification pending.

 

                                                                                            May 2011            Term to Date

 

Requests for Certification filed.............................................       2                      8

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

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

 

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

      Civil cases (requests granted)..........................................       1  (1)                4  (3)

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

 

 

 

           


Regulatory Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions

 

            During the month, 8 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 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 43 regulatory matters and 12 writs pending.

 

                                                                                             May 2011           Term to Date

 

Filings

 

Attorney discipline (including reopened cases).....................        8                   64

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ (other writs)..........................        6                   47

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

 

Dispositions by Order

 

Attorney discipline................................................................        1                     8

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ (other writs)..........................      11                   47

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

 


DECISIONS BY THE

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

 

OPINIONS ISSUED DURING MAY 2011

 

 

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2007AP1281-D

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v.

Michael F. Hupy

Public Reprimand.

Per Curiam[1]

Gableman, J. did not participate.

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

 

 

05/27/2011

 

 

 

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2009AP0806-CR

State v. Marvin L. Beauchamp

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Crooks, J.

Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J.

 

05/03/2011

2009AP1252-CR

State v. Shantell T. Harbor

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Bradley, J.

 

05/10/2011

2009AP0956-CR

State v. Donovan M. Burris

Reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals.

Majority Opinion: Crooks, J.

Concurrence:  Prosser, J.

Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J.

 

05/17/2011

2009AP2973

In re the termination of parental rights to Gwenevere T., a person under the age of 18: Tammy W-G. v. Jacob T.

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J.

Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J.

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

 

 

05/17/2011

2009AP1714

Emjay Investment Company v. Village of Germantown

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J.

05/17/2011

 

 

 

2008AP1139

State v. Omer Ninham

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J.

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

05/20/2011

 

 

 

2009AP0688

Susan Foley-Ciccantelli and Dr. Mark J. Ciccantelli v. Bishop’s Grove Condominium Association, Inc. and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

05/24/2011

 

Order of the circuit court reversed and cause remanded.

Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C. J.

Concurrence: Prosser, J.

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

 

 

 

 

2009AP1669

Roger H. Fischer, Sr. and Sandra J. Fischer v. Pamela A. Steffen and Wilson Mutual Insurance Co., Kohler Company and Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor

05/24/2011

 

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C. J.

Dissent: Bradley, J.

Dissent: Prosser, J.

 

 

 

 

2009AP1422

Jessica L. Siebert, by her Guardian ad Litem, D. J. Weis and Lynette A. Siebert, Steve Albrecht, Jr., by his Guardian ad Litem, Thomas W. Kyle, Steven Albrecht, Sr., Kari Sosnowski, by her Guardian ad Litem, Thomas W. Kyle and Cyndi Anderson, Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Wisconsin American Mutual Insurance Company, Interstate Brands Corporation, ACE American Insurance Company and Ryan Friberg

Reversed.

Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J.

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

05/24/2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

2009AP2784

Mark Klemm and Jeanne Klemm v. American Transmission Company, LLC

05/26/2011

 

Reversed.

Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C. J.

 

 



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