Headlines archive

Supreme Court accepts two new cases

Madison, Wisconsin - January 28, 2008

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept two new cases. 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.

2006AP2753 State v. Hubbard
This case involves the meaning of "materially impaired" to determine whether a person is "under the influence" for injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle. The state seeks review of a decision reversing Jonathan Hubbard's conviction for injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle. The Court of Appeals agreed with Hubbard that the circuit court erroneously responded to a jury’s request for clarification of the term "materially impaired."

Some background: While driving in Mequon in 2005, Hubbard had rear-ended another vehicle and pushed it off the road into a tree. The crash resulted in serious injuries to a nine-year-old girl. Officers on the scene described Hubbard as uninjured but "disoriented." Hubbard explained that he had taken prescription medication earlier in the day. Further investigation turned up several types of medication in Hubbard's car.

The State charged Hubbard with injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle. The case went to trial, and at the close of arguments, the jury received instructions. The heart of the dispute seems to be whether, as Hubbard contends, "materially impaired" is a technical term with a peculiar meaning under State v. Waalen, 130 Wis. 2d 18, 27, 386 N.W.2d 47 (1986), or, as the state maintains, that the Waalen case supports the view that the words "materially impaired" should be accorded their common and ordinary meaning.

A decision by the Supreme Court could help resolve a narrow legal question on which a circuit court and Court of Appeals disagree. From Ozaukee County.

2006AP3092 Watton v. Hegerty
This case examines whether copies of certain emergency detention statements generated and retained by the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) are subject to Wis. Stat. § 19.35, the state’s open records law, or if they are confidential treatment records under Wis. Stat. § 51.30 (4).

Some background: Milwaukee Police Chief Nanette Hegerty seeks review of a Court of Appeals' decision, which reversed a circuit court order. The circuit court order denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by attorney Michael Watton, who sought to compel the police department to produce documents addressing Sidney Gray’s emergency detention. The city produced the requested records, excluding the retained emergency reports.

Watton represents the estate and family of Frank Moore II, who was shot and killed by Gray the day after Gray was released from police custody. Watton asserts that Gray’s release was the result of negligence by MPD.

The trial court concluded that the MPD-retained emergency detention reports, produced when Gray was taken to the Milwaukee County Mental Health Center, were confidential under Wis. Stat. § 51.30(4) as "treatment records," and therefore exempt from disclosure under the open records statute.

In reversing, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court misconstrued the relevant statutes. From Milwaukee County.

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).


  • 2007AP155 & 2007AP156 State v. Somerhalder
  • 2007AP753-CR State v. VanCleve
  • 2007AP824-CR State v. Boyd


  • 2007AP2714-W Smith v. Grams


  • 2006AP1228 State v. Patterson
  • 2006AP1756-CR State v. Duarte-Vestar
  • 2006AP2038-CR State v. Evans
  • 2006AP2124-CR & 2006AP2934-CR State v. Gillis
  • 2007AP1117-W Jacobs v. Acting Dietician
    Justice Ann Walsh Bradley did not participate.
  • 2007AP2068-W Jacobs v. Acting Security
    Justice Ann Walsh Bradley did not participate.

Eau Claire

  • 2007AP168 State v. Northern


  • 2007AP6-W Jacobs v. Wis. Jud. Ed.
    Justice Ann Walsh Bradley did not participate.


  • 2006AP1543-CR State v. Diehl
  • 2007AP93 Diehl v. Wambach
  • 2007AP534-CR State v. Dzwonkowski

La Crosse

  • 2006AP2322-CR State v. Hinrichs
  • 2007AP605-CR State v. Spears


  • 2007AP138-CR State v. Marquez


  • 2003XX17994-CR State v. Gladney
  • 2004AP1963-CR State v. Bembenek
    Justice Patience Drake Roggensack dissents.
  • 2006AP225 State v. Ferguson
  • 2006AP345-CR State v. Parker
  • 2006AP480 Roy v. St. Lukes Med.
  • 2006AP1737-CR State v. Lee
  • 2006AP1750-CR State v. Phoudavong
  • 2006AP1873 State v. Wagner
  • 2006AP1883-CR State v. McGhee
  • 2006AP2084-CR State v. Atkins
  • 2006AP2087-CR State v. Lowden
  • 2006AP2172-CR State v. Cohen
  • 2006AP2289 Milw. Police v. Hegerty
    Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler did not participate.
  • 2006AP2490-CR State v. Gordon
    Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissents.
  • 2006AP2560-CR State v. Cook
  • 2006AP2616 State v. Maddox
  • 2006AP2709 State v. Moua
  • 2006AP2710-CR State v. Pearson
  • 2006AP2864-CR State v. Williams
  • 2006AP2974-CR State v. Zunac
    Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissents.
  • 2006AP3161 Barbian v. Bd./Zoning Appeals
  • 2007AP30 State v. Evans
  • 2007AP87 Lemke v. City of Milw. Bd. of Fire & Police Com.
  • 2007AP212 Perhach v. Phoenix Care
  • 2007AP658-60 Co. of Milw. v Muhammad
  • 2007AP1354 Alston v. LIRC
  • 2007AP1866-W Hawkins v. Cir. Ct./Milw. Co.
  • 2007AP2652-W Edwards v. COA
  • 2007AP2775-W Conley v. Jenkins
  • 2007AP2950-OA Smith v. City of Milw.
  • 2007AP2957-W James v. Thurmer


  • 2007AP766-CR State v. Schroeder


  • 2006AP494-CRNM State v. Polzin
  • 2006AP3004-CR State v. Winius
  • 2007AP160-CR State v. Hansen


  • 2006AP2334-CR State v. Johnson
  • 2007AP1632-CR State v.Herrera


  • 2007AP970 State v. Kusch


  • 2005AP2807-CR State v. Doyle


  • 2006AP210 Town/LaPrairie v. Mule Hill
  • 2006AP2390 State v. Garland


  • 2006AP312 Co. of Sauk v. Josellis


  • 2006AP1447 & 2007AP26 Town/Mosel v. Hodgell
  • 2006AP2379 Acuity v. Whittingham
  • 2006AP2871-CR State v. Markwardt


  • 2007AP83-CR State v. Johansen


  • 2006AP2631-CR State v. Piatek


  • 2006AP1895-CRNM  State v. Robinson
    Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler did not participate.
  • 2006AP2481 Parsons v. Am. Family
    Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler did not participate.
  • 2006AP2727-CR State v. Nommensen
  • 2006AP2731-CR State v. Roelke
    Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler did not participate.
  • 2007AP2503-W Valles v. COA
    Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler did not participate.


  • 2006AP2128 Rousch v. Rousch
    Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissent.
  • 2006AP3007-CR State v. Brody


  • 2006AP2068 & 2006AP2069 State v. Geske
  • 2006AP3093 Trispel v. Smith


  • 2006AP2450 State v. Hewitt

Back to headlines archive 2008