Oral Argument Day

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral argument on three cases today.

Hausserman v. BBE involves the challenge to a decision of the Wisconsin Board of Bar Examiners which denying admission to the Wisconsin bar.  At issue is whether Hausserman demonstrates the necessary character and trustworthiness to practice law in Wisconsin.  The Board of Bar Examiners concluded that Hausserman failed to disclose a prior conviction when applying for admission, and that he also minimized the seriousness of other instances of unlawful conduct.

Steadfast Insurance Company v. Greenwich Insurance Company examines how to allocate financial liability among two insurance companies that both owe a duty to defend a mutual insured.

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert Zapf examines whether a former Kenosha County District Attorney's license to practice law be suspended due to an alleged failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.

Video will be livestreamed and archived at Wisconsin Eye.

SCOWIS Accepts Seven New Cases

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has recently accepted seven new cases.  Summaries of the case can be found here.

October Oral Argument Schedule and Synopses

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin's oral argument schedule and synopses can be found here.

SCOWIS Public Rules Hearing October 11, 2018

The public notice for the Supreme Court of Wisconsin public rules hearing scheduled October 11, 2018 can be found here. A copy of the petition with additional information can be found here.

Oral Argument Day

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin will hold oral arguments on three cases today.

State v. C.L.K. will examine whether the circuit court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the State in a termination of parental rights trial, and whether such an error is structural or harmless.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's order directing verdict in favor of the state.  The Court of Appeals decision can be found here.

Michael Englehardt v. City of New Berlin will examine whether the City of New Berlin is entitled to governmental immunity for the tragic death of a child at a swimming pool during a summer camp outing with the City of New Berlin Parks and Recreation Department.  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel coverage of the Court of Appeals decision, which reversed the circuit court decision, and sided with the City of New Berlin can be found here.

Milwaukee District Council 48 v. Milwaukee County will examine whether certain Milwaukee County employees, represented by District Council 48, were covered by a collective bargaining at the time a Milwaukee County ordinance that made those employees eligible for certain retirement benefits.  The Court of Appeals decision, which affirmed the Milwaukee County Circuit Court decision granting summary judgment in favor of Milwaukee District Council 48, can be found here.  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel coverage of the court of appeals decision can be found here.

2018 Wisconsin Civil Justice Council Wisconsin Supreme Court Guide and Judicial Evaluation

The Wisconsin Civil Justice Council, an organization formed to represent Wisconsin business interests in civil litigation, has just released its 2018 Guide to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Judicial Evaluation.  This publication summarizes Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions which impact business interests, along with tracking how frequently individual justices decided cases in favor of the positions taken by WCJC. 

Each case summary in the report includes a factual summary, a summary of the decision and any dissenting opinions, and a listing of how each justice voted in each case along with a notation stating whether WCJC agreed with the decision or not.

The WCJC represents a variety of large business interests in Wisconsin, and it is interesting to see what judicial outcomes are supported by these business interests, and how each justice approached cases with these issues. 

The judicial evaluation included two primary groupings.  Justice Rebecca Bradley, Justice Ziegler, Chief Justice Roggensack, Justice Gableman, and Justice Kelly all decided cases in favor of positions taken by WCJC approximately 80% of the time.  Justice Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, on the other hand, both decided cases in favor of positions taken by the WCJC approximately 23% of the time. 

Full disclosure: I was counsel of record for the City of Eau Claire in Voters With Facts v. City of Eau Claire, which was decided in favor of the City of Eau Claire (an outcome that the WCJC agreed with).  Interestingly, this case involved a majority opinion written by Justice Ziegler which was joined by justices Abrahamson, Walsh Bradley, Gableman, and Chief Justice Roggensack.  The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Rebecca Bradely and joined by Justice Kelly.

The WCJC 2018 Guide to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Judicial Evaluation can be found here.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Grants Review in Dane County Case

Wisconsin Supreme Court Grants Review in Enbridge v. Dane County.  Coverage from the Wisconsin Gazette can be found here.