WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

MONTHLY STATISTICAL REPORT

 

MAY 2012

 

            This statistical report presents information about the case filings and dispositions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the month of May 2012 and to date for the term that began on September 1, 2011.

 

Opinions Issued by the Court

 

            The Supreme Court issued opinions resolving 14 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 2012           Term to Date

 

Total number of cases resolved by opinion ...........................      14                      65

      Attorney disciplinary cases..............................................        5                      31

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

      Civil cases........................................................................        8                      24

      Criminal cases .................................................................        1                      10

   

 

Petitions for Review

 

            A total of 68 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 45 petitions for review, of which 6 petitions were granted.  The Supreme Court currently has 238 petitions for review pending.

 

                                                                                             May 2012           Term to Date

 

Petitions for Review filed......................................................     68                     583

      Civil cases........................................................................     30                     292

      Criminal cases..................................................................     38                     291


 

Petition for Review dispositions............................................     45                     669

      Civil cases (petitions granted)..........................................     26  (5)               332  (28)

      Criminal cases (petitions granted)....................................     19  (1)               337  (12)

 

 

Petitions for Bypass

 

            In May, the Supreme Court received no petitions for bypass and disposed of 0 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 2012             Term to Date

 

Petitions for Bypass filed......................................................       0                      4

      Civil cases........................................................................       0                      3

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

 

 

Petition for Bypass dispositions............................................       0                      6    

      Civil cases (petitions granted)..........................................       0  (0)                5  (1)

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

 

 

Requests for Certification

 

            During May 2012, 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 2 requests for certification pending.

 

                                                                                            May 2012            Term to Date

 

Requests for Certification filed.............................................       2                      9

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

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

 

 

Request for Certification dispositions...................................       1                      9    

      Civil cases (requests granted)..........................................       1  (1)                6  (3)

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


 

Regulatory Matters, Supervisory Writs, and Original Actions

 

            During the month, a total of 5 matters within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Court (bar admission, lawyer discipline, and judicial discipline) were filed and 1 such case was 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 15 petitions for supervisory writ pending.

 

                                                                                             May 2012           Term to Date

 

Filings

 

Attorney discipline (including reopened cases).....................        5                   55

Judicial discipline...................................................................        0                     1

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ...............................................        6                   55

Other (including Original Actions)........................................        0                     6

 

Dispositions by Order

 

Attorney discipline................................................................        0                   11

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

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

Petitions for Supervisory Writ...............................................        3                   52

Other (including Original Actions)........................................        2                     9


DECISIONS BY THE

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

 

OPINIONS ISSUED DURING May 2012

 

 

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2011AP817-D

OLR v. J. Manuel Raneda

1 Year Suspension

Per Curiam

 

05/01/2012

 

2011AP778-D

OLR v. T. Aaron J. Rollins

60 Day Suspension

Per Curiam

 

05/09/2012

 

2011AP142-D

OLR v. Anne E. Brown

2 Year Suspension

Per Curiam

 

05/18/2012

2010AP2566-D

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) v. Bridget E. Boyle

60 Day Suspension

Per Curiam[1]

 

05/23/2012

2011AP1654-D

OLR v. T. Christopher Kelly

60 Day Revocation

Per Curiam

 

05/23/2012

 

 

 

 

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

 

Docket No.                        Title                                                                                                 Date

 

2010AP1474

Best Price Plumbing, Inc. v. Erie Insurance Exchange

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Bradley, J.

Dissent:  Ziegler, J., joined by

Roggensack, J.

 

05/03/2012

2010AP2023

The Lamar Company, LLC v. Country Side Restaurant, Inc.

Court of Appeals decision reversed and cause remanded to the circuit court.

Majority Opinion:  Ziegler, J.

 

05/04/2012

2010AP208

Aurora Consolidated Health Care v. Labor and Industry Review Commission

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Bradley, J.

Dissent:  Roggensack, J.

Prosser, J. did not participate.

 

05/11/2012

2010AP2061

Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F.

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:  Gableman, J.

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

Prosser, J. did not participate.

 

05/18/2012

2010AP784

State v. Tyler T.

Court of Appeals decision affirmed.

Majority Opinion:   Zeigler, J.

Dissent:  Bradley, J., joined by

Abrahamson, C.J.

Prosser, J. did not participate.

 

05/22/2012

2010AP1785

Joyce Aldrich v. LIRC

Court of Appeals decision reversed and cause remanded to the LIRC.

Majority Opinion:   Abrahamson, C.J.

 

05/23/2012

2010AP826

Marco A. Marquez v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Circuit Court judgment affirmed.

Majority Opinion:   Abrahamson, C.J.

Concurrence/Dissent:  Roggensack, J.

 

05/24/2012

2009AP2176

Dawn L. Maxwell v. Hartford Union High School District

Court of Appeals decision reversed.

Majority Opinion:   Prosser, J.

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

 

 

05/30/2012

2010AP1551-CR

State v. Douglas Meier Williams

Circuit Court Judgment affirmed.

Majority Opinion:   Roggensack, J.

Concurrence:  Abrahamson, C.J.

Prosser, J. did not participate.

 

 

05/30/2012

 



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