News

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept six 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 below. 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.

2019AP1319 Milwaukee Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Milwaukee
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District I
Circuit Court:  Milwaukee County, Judge Jeffrey A. Conen, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions
Long caption:  Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization, John Cwiklinski, Cheryl Ferrill, Kimberlee Foster, Dale Grudzina, April Hoffman, Joel Kujawa, Christopher Lehner, William McKeown, Jason Mucha, Brenda Nogalski, Tony Snow, Albert Carl Sunn, Jr., William Welter, Mark Zaremba and Joe Farina, Plaintiffs-Respondents, Milwaukee Professional Firefighters' Association Local 215, Intervenor-Respondent-Petitioner, v. City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee Employees' Retirement System Defendants-Appellants

Issues presented:      

1. Does the 2013-2016 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Milwaukee Professional Firefighters' Local 215 and the City of Milwaukee, the City of Milwaukee's Charter, and the parties' past practice require the City of Milwaukee Employees' Retirement System to include the 5.8% wage increase in its calculation of duty disability retirement ("DDR") benefits?
2. Does the 2013-2016 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Milwaukee Policy Supervisors Organization and the City of Milwaukee, the City of Milwaukee's Charter, and the parties' past practice require the City of Milwaukee Employees' Retirement System to include the 5.8% wage increase in its calculation of DDR benefits?
3. Does the Court of Appeals' decision comply with precedent regarding the interpretation of pension laws, in this case Milwaukee City Charter § 36?

2020AP806  Allsop Venture Partners III v. Murphy Desmond SC
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District IV
Circuit Court:  Dane County, Judge Richard G. Niess, affirmed
Long caption:  Allsop Venture Partners III, Alta V. Limited Partnership, Alta Subordinated Debt Partners III LP and State of Wisconsin Investment Board, Plaintiffs, Terry K. Shockley, Sandy K. Shockley and Shockley Holdings Limited Partnership, Inc., Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, Terence F. Kelly, Intervenor, v. Murphy Desmond SC, Robert A. Pasch and Westport Insurance Company, Defendants-Respondents

Issues presented:      

1. When is evidence of a settlement between plaintiff and co-defendant joint tortfeasors admissible under Wis. Stat. § 904.08?
2. Are allegations in a prior, unverified and superseded complaint admissible as admissions of a party opponent if the prior allegations are not inconsistent with the operative complaint?
3. Is a negligent tortfeasor entitled to indemnity from an intentional tortfeasor without proof of any connection between the intentional wrongdoing and subsequent negligence?
4. Does defense counsel's closing argument that settlement payments showed who were the "true culprits here, of course" and were an "acknowledgment" that settling defendants' intentional wrongdoing "had been proven" require a new trial?

2020AP1362-CR  State v. Jovan T. Mull
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District I
Circuit Court:  Milwaukee County, Judges Jonathan D. Watts and Joseph R. Wall, reversed and remanded
Long caption:  State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Jovan T. Mull, Defendant-Appellant

Issues presented: Under binding case law, in reviewing an ineffective assistance claim, the court must defer to a trial attorney's strategic decisions.  Here, the circuit court found Mull's attorney used reasonable strategies in choosing a defense and handling cross-examination of a witness, and it deferred to the attorney's strategy.  But the Court of Appeals substituted its own decisions for those of Mull's trial attorney.  Did the Court of Appeals impermissibly fail to defer to Mull's attorney's strategic decisions?

2020AP1683  Citation Partners, LLC v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District IV [District I judges]
Circuit Court:  Dodge County, Judge Martin J. DeVries, reversed and remanded
Long caption:  Citation Partners, LLC, Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Respondent-Appellant

Issues presented: Are reimbursement payments made under a lease by the lessees of Petitioner's Aircraft for the lessees' proportional share of airplane parts and maintenance and repair services exempt from sales tax pursuant to the provisions of 2013 Wisconsin Act 185 and the common law of agency?

2020AP2146  DEKK Property Development LLC v. Wis. Dep't of Transportation
Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review
Court of Appeals:  District II [District IV judges]
Circuit Court:  Kenosha County, Judge Anthony G. Milisauskas, reversed and remanded
Long caption:  DEKK Property Development, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Defendant-Appellant

Issue presented: Can DOT remove a "right of access," contained in a record deed made under eminent domain procedures, under the guise of an exercise of the policy power without prior due process proceedings and without just compensation?

2020AP1728-CR  State v. Percy Antoine Robinson
Supreme Court case type:  Certification
Court of Appeals:  District I
Circuit Court:  Milwaukee County, Judges Michelle Ackerman Havas and Lindsey Canonie Grady
Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Percy Antione Robinson, Defendant-Appellant

Issues presented: Whether the CR-215 procedure triggers the attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which would then entitle an accused person to have the right to counsel for any subsequent "critical stage" of the legal proceedings.

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:

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