WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT

 

JULY 2011

 

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

 

Opinions Issued by the Court

 

            The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 30 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 2011            Term to Date

 

Total number of cases resolved by opinion ...........................      30                      89

      Attorney disciplinary cases..............................................        2                      27

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

      Civil cases........................................................................      21                      44

      Criminal cases .................................................................        7                      18

           

 

Petitions for Review

 

            A total of 66 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 5 petitions for review, of which none were granted.  The Supreme Court currently has 262 petitions for review pending.

 

                                                                                             July 2011            Term to Date

 

Petitions for Review filed......................................................     66                     738

      Civil cases........................................................................     32                     373

      Criminal cases..................................................................     34                     365


 

Petition for Review dispositions............................................       5                     671

      Civil cases (petitions granted)..........................................       3  (0)               351  (41)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................       2  (0)               320  (21)

 

 

Petitions for Bypass               

 

            In July, 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 two petitions for bypass pending.

 

                                                                                           July 2011              Term to Date

 

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

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

      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 July 2011, the Supreme Court received 2 requests for certification and disposed of none.  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 5 requests for certification pending.

 

                                                                                            July 2011             Term to Date

 

Requests for Certification filed.............................................       2                    12

      Civil cases........................................................................       0                      8

      Criminal cases..................................................................       2                      4

 

Request for Certification dispositions...................................       0                      9    

      Civil cases (requests granted)..........................................       0  (0)                6  (4)

      Criminal cases (requests granted)....................................       0  (0)                3  (3)

 

 

 

           


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 received no 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 47 regulatory matters and 8 writs pending.

 

                                                                                             July 2011            Term to Date

 

Filings

 

Attorney discipline (including reopened cases).....................        8                   76

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ (other writs)..........................        0                   50

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

 

Dispositions by Order

 

Attorney discipline................................................................        0                     9

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ (other writs)..........................        2                   55

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

 


DECISIONS BY THE

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

 

OPINIONS ISSUED DURING JULY 2011

 

 

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2010AP1939-D

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v.

Christopher A. Mutschler

Per Curiam[1]

License revoked.

 

 

07/14/2011

2011AP48-D

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v. James M. Schoenecker

Per Curiam

License suspended.

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

07/15/2011

 

 

 

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2007AP35

David Rasmussen v. General Motors Corporation

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J.

Concurrence: Abrahamson, C.J.

 

 

07/01/2011

2008AP3170

Lake Beulah Management District v. DNR

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

Concurrence: Ziegler, J.

 

 

07/06/2011

2009AP2021

Lake Beulah Management District v. Village of East Troy

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Crooks, J.

 

 

07/06/2011

2009AP2315

Joyce Affeldt v. Green Lake County

Reversed and remanded.

Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J.

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

 

 

07/06/2011

2009AP1249-CR

State v. Esteban M. Gonzalez

Reversed and remanded.

Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C. J.

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

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

07/08/2011

 

 

 

2009AP2433-FT

Patrick A. Topolski v. Ellen J. Topolski

Modified and affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Abrahamson, C. J.

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

07/08/2011

 

 

 

2009AP1007

BNP Paribas v. Olsen’s Mill, Inc.

Reversed and remanded.

Majority Opinion: Bradley, J.

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

Prosser, J. did not participate.

07/08/2011

 

 

 

2008AP2765-CR

State v. David D. Funk

Reversed.

Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J.

Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J.

Dissent: Bradley, J., joined by Abrahamson, C. J. and Prosser, J. (joining Part II)

Dissent: Prosser, J.

07/08/2011

 

 

 

2009AP1558

John R. Steffens v. BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois

Reversed.

Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J.

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

07/08/2011

 

 

 

2009AP564

DeBoer Transportation, Inc. v. Charles Swenson

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J.

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

07/12/2011

2009AP639

Tracy J. McReath v. Timothy J. McReath

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Roggensack, J.

07/12/2011

 

 

 

2009AP538

Steven T. Kilian v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Reversed and remanded.

Majority Opinion: Gableman, J.

Concurrence: Roggensack, J.

Ziegler, J. did not participate.

07/12/2011

 

 

 

2009AP694-CR

State v. Rickey R. Denson

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Ziegler, J.

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

07/13/2011

 

 

 

2009AP775

E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. County of Oneida

Reversed.

Majority Opinion: Gableman, J.

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

07/13/2011

 

 

 

2009AP25-CR

State v. Olu A. Rhodes

Reversed and remanded.

Majority Opinion: Prosser, J.

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

07/14/2011

 

 

 

2009AP2845-W

Madison Metropolitan School District v. Circuit Court for Dane County

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Prosser, J.

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

07/14/2011

 

 

 

2008AP2897

Link Snacks, Inc. v. Jay E. Link

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.

Majority Opinion: Gableman, J.

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

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

07/14/2011

 

 

 

2006AP1229/

2006AP2512

2007AP369

Bryan Casper v. American International South Insurance Company

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.

Majority Opinion: Prosser, J.

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

07/19/2011

 

 

 

2009AP120

Dale Dawson v. Town of Jackson

Reversed.

Majority Opinion: Prosser, J.

Concurrence: Roggensack, J.

Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J.

07/19/2011

 

 

 

2009AP472

State v. David J. Balliette

Reversed.

Majority Opinion: Prosser, J.

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

07/19/2011

 

 

 

2009AP1351-CR

State v. Gregg B. Kandutsch

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Prosser, J.

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

07/19/2011

 

 

 

2009AP1469/

2009AP1470

Covenant Healthcare System, Inc. v. City of Wauwatosa

Reversed.

Majority Opinion: Gableman, J.

Dissent: Abrahamson, C. J.

07/19/2011

 

 

 

2009AP191

Stupar River LLC v. Town of Linwood Board of Review

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Gableman, J.

07/22/2011

 

 

 

2009AP1579

State v. Edwin Clarence West

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Prosser, J.

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

 

 

07/26/2011

2010AP1142

State v. Glen D. Nordberg

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion: Prosser, J.

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

07/26/2011

                                                                                                                                                                                   



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