News

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept five new cases, and the Court acted to deny review in a number of other cases. The case numbers, counties of origin, and the issues presented in granted cases are listed here. More detailed synopses will be released at a later date. More information about pending appellate cases can be found on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Access website. Published Court of Appeals opinions can be found here, and the status of pending Supreme Court cases can be found here.

2018AP2357-LV State v. Anthony James Jendusa
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District I, denied the petition for leave to appeal
Circuit Court: Milwaukee County, Judge Joseph R. Wall, presiding
Long caption:  State of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Petitioner v. Anthony James Jendusa, Respondent-Respondent

Issues presented:

1. Did the Court of Appeals erroneously exercise its discretion in denying the State's petition for leave to appeal because the order subjects DOC and the researchers to substantial and irreparable injury and raises substantial issues of general importance in the administration of justice, because the circuit court had no authority – pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 980.036(2)(h), § 980.036(2)(j), § 980.036(5), or Brady v. Maryland – to order DOC to disclose this data to the defense for use in Jendusa's sexually-violent person commitment trial?
2. Does release of the information in the database sought by the respondent violate either Wisconsin or federal law, see e.g., Wis. Stat. § 51.30; Wis. Stat. §§ 146.81-83; Wis. Admin. Code ch. DHS 92; 42 C.F.R. ch. 1(A)2, 2a; 42 C.F.R. Part 2; 45 C.F.R. Subt. A, Subch. A., pt. 46 (protection of human subjects); 45 C.F.R. Subt. A, Subch. C, pt. 164 (HIPPA)?
3. Does an entity like the Department of Corrections fall under the umbrella of "the state" for the purposes of the Wis. Stat. Ch. 980 discovery statutes?
4. Does the circuit court have authority to order a non-investigative agency to provide a defendant with data that does not meet any of the discovery provisions in Wis. Stat. Ch. 980?
5. Does Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) impose any duty on a prosecutor in sexually violent person commitment trials?

Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Frank Dallet dissent as to the process in adding issues to the petition for review.

2019AP2054-OA WSBU v. Joel Brennan
Supreme Court case type: Original Action
Long caption: Wisconsin Small Business United, Inc., Amy Dailey, Larry Gierach, Doug Hustedt, Sandi Vandervest and Tom Vandervest, Petitioners v. Joel Brennan, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Administration, Peter Barca, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Revenue and Carolyn Standford Taylor, in her official capacity as Acting Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondents

Issues presented:

1. May the Governor, pursuant to his constitutional authority under art. V, sec. 10 of the Wisconsin Constitution, as amended in 1990, reject individual parts of a date contained in an enrolled bill so as to create a new date that was never approved by the Legislature?
2. Should this Petition for an Original Action be denied because petitioners have not shown that the issues presented require a prompt resolution?
3. In the alternative, should the Petition be held in abeyance pending this Court's resolution of the original action in Bartlett, et al. v. Evers, et al., Case No. 2019AP1376-OA?

2018AP594-CR State v. Leevan Roundtree
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District I [District IV judges]
Circuit Court: Milwaukee County, Judges David Allen Hansher and William S. Pocan, affirmed
Long caption:  State of Wisconsin Plaintiff-Respondent v. Leevan Roundtree, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner

Issues presented:

1. Is WIS. STAT. § 941.29(2) unconstitutional as applied to a person convicted of failure to pay child support?
2. In the aftermath of Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798 (2018), does a guilty plea waive a claim that the statute of conviction is unconstitutional as applied?

2018AP1518 Ted Ritter v. Tony Farrow
Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District III
Circuit Court:  Vilas County, Judge Michael H. Bloom, affirmed
Long caption: Ted Ritter and Carolyn Ritter d/b/a Ritter Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiffs-Respondents v. Tony Farrow and Arlyce Farrow d/b/a Farrow Enterprises, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners, Bibs Resort Condominium, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent

Issues presented:

1. Does Wisconsin trademark law permit an implied assignment of trademarks to a new owner when no other business assets or services are transferred?
2. Does Wisconsin's Condominium Ownership Act require that control of business services and corresponding trademarks transfer to a condominium association when the real property where the services are provided is converted to a condominium?

2018AP319-CR State v. Timothy E. Dobbs
Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review
Court of Appeals: District IV
Circuit Court: Dane County, Judges Clayton Patrick Kawski and Jill J. Karofsky, affirmed
Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Timothy E. Dobbs, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner

Issues presented:

1. Did the trial court err in precluding defense expert witness Dr. Lawrence T. White from testifying where, consistent with State v. Smith, 2016 WI App 8, 366 Wis. 2d 613, 874 N.W.2d 610, his opinions were relevant to a material issue, but he would not be offering an opinion on the specific facts of the case?
2. Did the trial court err in allowing Mr. Dobbs'[s] statements to law enforcement into evidence despite the delay in reading him his Miranda rights and because his statements were involuntary due to his mental and physical conditions?
3. Whether the Court of Appeals' decision is consistent with State v. Morgan, 2002 WI App 124, 254 Wis. 2d 602, 648 N.W.2d 23, and if not, whether Morgan should be overruled?

Review denied: The Supreme Court denied review in the following cases. As the state's law-developing court, the Supreme Court exercises its discretion to select for review only those cases that fit certain statutory criteria (see Wis. Stat. § 809.62). Except where indicated, these cases came to the Court via petition for review by the party who lost in the lower court:

Dane
19AP1336-1338 Dane County DHS v. T.R.

Fond du Lac
17AP2049-CR State v. Nutting

Jefferson
18AP882-CR State v. Curtis

Milwaukee
17AP1498-CR State v. Strickland
18AP1044-CRNM State v. Conner
18AP1145-1146-CR State v. Zocco
18AP1391-1393-CR State v. Tanner—Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet did not participate.
18AP1424/1425-CR State v. Franklin
18AP1509 State v. Welch
18AP1537 State v. Murray
18AP1651-CR State v. Ferguson
18AP2068/2069 State v. Brooks
19AP115-117 State v. K.K.E.
19AP151557-1558-W Nicolai v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County
19AP1807-W James v. Court of Appeals, District I
19AP1849-W Pabon-Gonzalez v. Boughton
19AP2376-W Bohringer v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County—Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack did not participate.

Monroe
18AP1720-CR State v. Anderson

Oconto
18AP1078 Nowak v. Town of Little Suamico

Outagamie
19AP990/991 Outagamie County DH&HS v. R.P.

Racine
18AP1339-CR State v. Voss
19AP353-CRNM State v. Clemon
19AP1960-1962-W Johnson v. Richardson

St. Croix
18AP1924-AC Ard v. Board of Canvassers—Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley and Justice Daniel Kelly dissent.

Vernon
18AP2013-CR State v. McClain

Waupaca
18AP2251-CR State v. Yost

Wood
18AP1812-CR State v. Kusters

Contact:
Tom Sheehan
Court Information Officer
(608) 261-6640