Headlines archive

Supreme Court accepts one new case

Madison, Wisconsin - January 20, 2010

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept one new case. The Court also acted to deny review in a number of cases. The case numbers, issues, and counties of origin are listed below. Court of Appeals’ opinions/certification memos available online for the newly accepted cases are hyperlinked.

2009AP728 Wis. Med. Society v. Michael L. Morgan
This certification from District IV Court of Appeals asks the Supreme Court to review two issues related to legislation that transferred $200 million from the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund to the Medical Assistance Trust Fund: (1) whether the Wisconsin Medical Society and David Hoffman, M.D. (the health care providers) have a protectable property interest in the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund (the Fund); and (2) whether a statute that retroactively repudiates a government’s contractual obligation is constitutional.

Some background: The health care providers brought this action against the Secretary of the Department of Administration, Michael Morgan, in his official capacity, claiming that his actions implementing the fund transfer under 2007 Wis. Act 20, § 9225, part of the 2007-09 state budget, were illegal.

The health care providers claim the transfer is (1) an unconstitutional taking of property rights without just compensation; (2) an unconstitutional impairment of contractual rights; (3) an improperly promulgated tax; (4) a denial of rights to equal protection under the law; (5) a violation of statutorily required provision; and (6) a deprivation of constitutional rights under the color of state law, contrary to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The health care providers sought a declaration that the Act is illegal and an order directing that the $200 million plus interest be returned to the Fund, with an award of their attorney fees. Secretary Morgan countered that he was entitled to summary judgment because (1) the health care providers have no property interest in the Fund; and (2) the health care providers' claims were barred by the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.

The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Secretary Morgan, concluding that the health care providers did not have a protectable property interest in the Compensation Fund, and that their remaining claims were barred by sovereign immunity.

Briefs amicus curiae have been received from the Wisconsin Hospital Association, as well as a joint brief from the Wisconsin Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Wisconsin Chapter of the American College of Physicians, the Milwaukee District Association of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, and the American Medical Association. An additional amicus brief has been submitted by Dean Health Systems Inc., Marshfield Clinic and Gunderson Lutheran Health System, Inc. Further, the Medical College of Wisconsin has submitted an amicus brief A decision by the Supreme Court would have statewide impact.

Review denied: The Supreme Court denied review in the following cases. Supreme Court review is a matter of judicial discretion, not of right, and will be granted only when special and important reasons are presented. As the state’s law-developing court, the Supreme Court exercises its discretion to consider for review only those cases that fit certain criteria, but these criteria neither control nor fully measure the Court’s discretion (see Wis. Stat. (rule) § 809.62).

2008AP1297-CR State v. Holz
2008AP3043-CR State v. Huck
2009AP71-CR State v. Bero
2009AP291-CR State v. McGowan - Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson dissents

2008AP2420-22-CR State v. Gerhartz

2008AP2101-CR State v. Cruz-Delvalle
2008AP2543 Mohammed v. Wis. Ins. Sec. Fund
2009AP1710 Est. of Zimmerman v. Dane Co. and 2009AP1711 Gonnering v. Endres (consolidated matters)
2009AP2924-W Pettigrew v. Cir. Ct. Dane Co.

Eau Claire
2008AP2564-CR State v. Emig
2009AP76 State v. Marquardt - Justice Patience Drake Roggensack did not participate

2008AP992-CR State v. Adams

2009AP1997 Jackson Co. DHHS v. Susan H.

2008AP2846-CR State v. Tidwell

La Crosse
2009AP1376 State v. Pozo

2008AP1519-CR State v. Osborne - Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissent
2009AP341-CR State v. Haydon

2007AP2335-CRNM State v. Lewis
2008AP384 State v. Crawford
2008AP751-CR State v. Reed
2008AP780 Lebedinsky v. Akhmedov
2008AP896 State v. Booth
2008AP1826-CR State v. Williams
2008AP1827-CRNM State v. Salazar-Wetzel
2008AP1960-CR State v. Valoe
2008AP2061 State v. 260 N. 12th St.
2008AP2141 Sliwinski v. City of Milwaukee
2008AP2614-CRNM State v. Mathis
2008AP2657 State v. Lipscomb
2008AP2821-CR State v. Perkins
2009AP150 Terry v. LIRC
2009AP202 Wauwatosa Ave. United Methodist v. City of Wauwatosa
2009AP249-CR State v. Phillips - Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson dissents
2009AP535-CR State v. Fisher
2009AP569-CR State v. Deramus
2009AP700-CR State v. Jackson
2009AP1385-W Rogers v. Thurmer

2008AP3227-CR State v. Servantez

2008AP1330-CR State v. Gibbs
2008AP1517 James Cape & Sons Co. v. Streu Const.
2008AP2872 James Cape & Sons Co. V. Streu Const.
2008AP2995-CR State v. McAlister

2008AP2135-CR State v. Davis

2009AP277-FT Fuller v. Fuller

St. Croix
2008AP1528 Maypark v. Securitas - Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissent

2008AP1171-CR State v. Brayshaw

2009AP587/88-CR State v. Schaefer

2009AP960-CR State v. Kosky

Tom Sheehan
Court Information Officer
(608) 261-6640

Back to headlines archive 2010