Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's writ of mandamus and contempt orders in this case, holding that Wis. Stat. 6.50(3) does not place a positive and plain duty on the Wisconsin Elections Commission to change the registration status of eligible voters when receiving reliable information that the elector moved out of their municipality.Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus against the Commission and its commissioners to carry out the instructions set forth in section 6.50(3) and change the registration of electors who may have moved. The circuit court granted the writ and later found several commissioners in contempt after the Commission failed to comply. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the writ was erroneously granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court erred by issuing a writ of mandamus ordering the Commission to carry out the requirements of section 6.50(e) because the Commission has no statutory duty, and therefore, no plain and positive duty, to carry out the requirements of the statute. View "Zignego v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the circuit court requiring Polk Properties, LLC and its sole member (collectively, Polk) to pay forfeitures for zoning violations, damages for the Village of Slinger's lost property tax revenue, and fees, holding that Polk did not abandon its nonconforming use.At issue was whether Polk abandoned the legal nonconforming use of the subject property after its zoning classification was changed from agricultural to residential. The circuit court enjoined Polk from using the property for agricultural reasons and imposed forfeitures, a monetary judgment for real estate taxes, and an order authorizing special assessments, special charges, and fees to be levied against Polk. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Polk's use of the property constituted a lawful nonconforming use for which Polk could not be penalized. View "Village of Slinger v. Polk Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the multiple states of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic proclaimed in certain executive orders exceeded the powers of Governor Tony Evers and were therefore unlawful.After declaring a state of emergency related to COVID-19 in March 2020 Governor Evers issued executive orders, in July and September, declaring additional states of emergency. Petitioner brought this original action asking that the Supreme Court declare the second and third emergencies unlawful under Wis. Stat. 323.10. The Supreme Court declared these second and third emergencies unlawful, holding (1) Executive Orders #82 and #90, both of which declared a public health emergency in response to COVID-19, were unlawful under section 323.10; and (2) Executive Order #105, the declaration of a state of emergency now in effect, was unlawful as well. View "Fabick v. Evers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the Department of Revenue and determining that Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC did not raise a claim that triggered judicial review, holding that Applegate met its threshold burden to show that there was an environmental injury.Applegate challenged the Department's decision not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the Wisconsin Environmental Police Act (WEPA) when it promulgated the administrative rule set out in Wis. Admin. Code Tax 18.05(1)(d). The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's dismissal, holding that Applegate had not raised a bona fide claim because it alleged only indirect environmental effects. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) administrative agencies must consider indirect, along with direct, environmental effects of their proposed rules when deciding whether to prepare an EIS; and (2) the Department failed to comply with WEPA. View "Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the court of appeals denying the State's petition for leave to file an interlocutory appeal of an order of the circuit court granting Defendant's discovery request, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting the request.In 2016, the State filed a petition seeking to commit Defendant was a sexually violent person. The circuit court found probable cause to believe that Defendant was a sexually violent person and bound him over for trial. Thereafter, Defendant moved the circuit court to order the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) to disclose its database so he could have an expert analyze the Wisconsin-specific base rate. Defendant asserted that the DOC's Wisconsin-specific data provided a more relevant basis upon which to calculate his risk of engaging in future acts of sexual violence and that the database was discoverable. The circuit court ordered the DOC to transmit the full, unredacted database to Defendant. The court of appeals denied the State's petition for leave to appeal the non-final order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court permissibly ordered the disclosure of the DOC database. View "State v. Jendusa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's order upholding the Town of Newbold's denial of Petitioner's attempt to subdivide his property, holding that the Town ordinance precluding the subdivision was a permissible exercise of the Town's subdivision authority pursuant to Wis. Stat. 236.45.The Town denied Petitioner's proposed subdivision because the two resulting lots would not meet the Town's applicable minimum shoreline frontage requirement, as set forth in the Town ordinance. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the minimum shoreline frontage requirement was unenforceable because it was a shoreline zoning regulation that the Town did not have the authority to enact. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that the ordinance was a permissible exercise of the Town's subdivision authority, and therefore, the Town proceeded on a correct theory of law when it denied Petitioner's request to subdivide his property. View "Anderson v. Town of Newbold" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a local zoning court of appeals approving homeowners' variance request, holding that, pursuant to Wis. Stat. 62.23(7)(e)10., certiorari review of the board's decision is triggered when a written copy of the decision is filed in the board's office.The homeowners in this case petitioned the Village of Williams Bay Extraterritorial Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance request. The Board unanimously approved the variance. Plaintiff, the homeowners' neighbor, filed for a writ of certiorari within thirty days after the Board orally voted to grant the variance but before the Board issued and filed a written copy of its decision. The circuit court affirmed the Board's decision. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the court of appeals properly determined what constitutes the "triggering event" for purposes of appealing the Board's decision on a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an aggrieved party's right to certiorari review is triggered when a written copy of a zoning board of appeals' decision is filed in the office of the board; (2) the Board's written decision and approved minutes were properly included in the certiorari record; and (3) the Board acted under the correct theory of law. View "Moreschi v. Village of Williams Bay" on Justia Law

In this case requiring the Supreme Court to determine the scope of the authority of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) to recoup payments made to Medicaid service providers the Supreme Court held that DHS does not have the authority to enforce its recoupment policy.Plaintiffs, Kathleen Papa and Professional Homecare Providers, Inc. (collectively, PHP), challenged DHS's recoupment policy as it had been enforced against PHP nurses to recover payments made for services they provided to Medicaid patients. PHP claimed that DHS recoups payments nurses earned and received for their Medicaid services because the nurses' supporting records contained documentation shortcomings. The Supreme Court held (1) DHS may recoup Medicaid payments from service providers only in cases where DHS cannot verify certain facts; and (2) DHS's recoupment policy exceeds its authority. View "Papa v. Wisconsin Department of Health Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Andrea Palm's order confining all people to their homes, forbidding travel, and closing businesses in response to the COVID-19 coronavirus (Emergency Order 28) was unenforceable because the order was a rule, and Palm did not follow statutory emergency rule making procedures established by the Legislature.On March 12, 2020, Governor Tony Evers issued Executive Order 72 proclaiming that a public health emergency existed in Wisconsin and directed DHS to take "all necessary and appropriate measures" to prevent incidents of COVID-19 in the State. On March 24, Palm, as secretary-designee of the Department of Health Services, issued Emergency Order 12 ordering Wisconsin citizens to stay at home. On April 16, Palm issued Emergency Order 28 ordering individuals to stay at home or risk punishment. The Wisconsin Legislature brought an emergency petition for original action asserting that Palm failed to follow emergency rulemaking procedures required under Wis. Stat. 227.24. The Supreme Court held (1) Emergency Order 28 is a "rule" under Wis. Stat. 227.01(13); (2) because Palm did not follow rulemaking procedures during Order 28's promulgation, there could be no criminal penalties for violations of her order; and (3) Palm's order further exceeded the statutory authority of Wis. Stat. 252.02. View "Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held in this case that Wisconsin law required an administrative agency to promulgate a rule containing a new statutory interpretation that prohibited the owner of a roadside sign from remedying a modification that caused the sign to lose its legal, nonconforming status before applying it against the sign owner.The sign owner here applied for a permit to remove vegetation that partially obscured the sign from view. At the time he filed the application nothing suggested that the sign failed to comply with applicable laws that existed at the time the permit issued. However, the interpretation of Wis. Stat. 84.30 changed so that the sign was no longer allowed where it was located. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation denied the application and ordered the sign owner to remove the sign. The Division of Hearings and Appeals upheld the determination. The circuit court and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Wis. Stat. 227.10(1) required the Department to engage in formal rulemaking when it adopted its new interpretation of Wis. Stat. 84.30(11). View "Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC v. Division of Hearings & Appeals" on Justia Law