WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT

 

DECEMBER 2011

 

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

 

Opinions Issued by the Court

 

            The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 5 cases in December.  Information about these opinions, including the Court’s disposition and the names of the authoring justices, can be found on the attached table.

 

                                                                                             December 2011  Term to Date

 

Total number of cases resolved by opinion ...........................        5                      13

      Attorney disciplinary cases..............................................        3                        9

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

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

      Criminal cases .................................................................        1                        3

           

 

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 December, the Supreme Court disposed of 117 petitions for review, of which 12 were granted.  The Supreme Court currently has 251 petitions for review pending.

 

                                                                                             December 2011  Term to Date

 

Petitions for Review filed......................................................     66                     265

      Civil cases........................................................................     34                     128

      Criminal cases..................................................................     32                     137


 

Petition for Review dispositions............................................   117                     340

      Civil cases (petitions granted)..........................................     51  (5)               173  (17)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................     66  (7)               167  (8)

 

 

Petitions for Bypass               

 

            In December, the Supreme Court received 0 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 0 petitions for bypass pending.

 

                                                                                           December 2011    Term to Date

 

Petitions for Bypass filed......................................................       0                      2

      Civil cases........................................................................       0                      2

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

 

Petition for Bypass dispositions............................................       1                      4    

      Civil cases (petitions granted)..........................................       1  (1)                4  (1)

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

 

 

Requests for Certification

 

            During December 2011, the Supreme Court received 0 requests for certification and disposed of 4 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 0 requests for certification pending.

 

                                                                                            December 2011   Term to Date

 

Requests for Certification filed.............................................       0                      3

      Civil cases........................................................................       0                      2

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

 

Request for Certification dispositions...................................       4                      5    

      Civil cases (requests granted)..........................................       3  (2)                3  (2)

      Criminal cases (requests granted)....................................       1  (1)                 2  (2)

 

 

 

           


Regulatory Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions

 

            During the month, 7 matters within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Court (bar admission, lawyer discipline, and judicial discipline) were filed and 1 case (disciplinary) was reopened.  The Supreme Court also received 7 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 35 regulatory matters and 13 writs pending.

 

                                                                                             December 2011  Term to Date

 

Filings

 

Attorney discipline (including reopened cases).....................        8                   26

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ (other writs)..........................        7                   20

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

 

Dispositions by Order

 

Attorney discipline................................................................        3                   10

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ (other writs)..........................      14                   22

Other (including Original Actions)........................................        1                     3

 


DECISIONS BY THE

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

 

OPINIONS ISSUED DURING DECEMBER 2011

 

 

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2010AP3012-D

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael J. Pierski

Per Curiam[1]

Public Reprimand

 

12/07/2011

2011AP0049-D

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. William R. Lamb

Per Curiam

60 Day Suspension

Concurrence/Dissent: Bradley, J.

 

12/16/2011

2011AP960-D

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert J. Smead

Per Curiam

Public Reprimand

12/20/2011

 

 

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2009AP1557

260 North 12th Street, LLC v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Ziegler, J.

Concurrence: Abrahamson, C. J.

 

12/22/2011

2010AP1113-CR

State v. Jason E. Goss

Affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Crooks, J.

 

12/23/2011

                                                                                                                       



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