Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Employee filed state discrimination claims against Employer. Employee first filed her claims with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which dismissed her claims. In the meantime, Employee filed a civil action in the U.S. district court. Employer moved for summary judgment, claiming that Employee's charge was time-barred because it was received by the EEOC more than 300 days after her demotion. Employee argued that the intake questionnaire she submitted to the EEOC constituted a valid charge and was within the 300-day statutory time period. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment for Employer. Employee's claims later went to the Equal Rights Division (ERD) of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, which found concluded that Employee's claims had merit. An ALJ dismissed the proceeding on the basis of claim preclusion. The Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) affirmed. On remand, the ALJ again dismissed, concluding (1) Employee's claims were untimely, and (2) the doctrine of issue preclusion prevented Employee from relitigating the issue of when her charge was filed with the EEOC. LIRC affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that applying the doctrine of issue preclusion in this case did not comport with principles of fundamental fairness. Remanded. View "Aldrich v. Labor & Ind. Review Comm'n" on Justia Law

The State filed a petition alleging that Tyler T., a juvenile, was delinquent and a petition for waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction over Tyler. The circuit court waived juvenile court jurisdiction over Tyler, and the court of appeals affirmed. Tyler appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in denying his request to strike a waiver investigation report prepared by the county department of health and human services (DHHS). The DHHS prepared its report after conducting a staffing meeting in which the county assistant district attorney, who filed the petition alleging Tyler's delinquency, participated. Because neither Tyler nor his defense counsel was invited to attend the meeting, Tyler contended that the assistant district attorney's participation in the staffing meeting constituted improper ex parte communication that compromised the objectivity of the waiver investigation report. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Tyler's request to strike the waiver investigation report prepared by the DHHS, as the DHHS is free to compile information for a waiver investigation report in the manner it deems most beneficial to the circuit court. View "State v. Tyler T." on Justia Law

Helen E.F. was an 85-year-old woman with Alzheimer's Disease. Helen was transported to the emergency room in the city of Fond du Lac for medical treatment. While there, Helen exhibited agitated and aggressive behavior. A police officer placed Helen under emergency detention pursuant to Wis. Stat. 51.15, and Fond du Lac County initiated a chapter 51 proceeding to involuntarily commit her for treatment. The circuit court eventually granted the petition for Helen's involuntary commitment for up to six months in a locked psychiatric unit. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the primary purpose of chapter 51 was to provide treatment, and because Alzheimer's Disease does not respond to treatment, involuntary commitment under chapter 51 was inappropriate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Helen was more appropriately treated under the provisions of chapter 55, the protective service system, which would allow for her care in a facility more narrowly tailored to her needs and provide her necessary additional process and protections. View "Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F." on Justia Law

After Employee suffered a work-related injury and was terminated by Employer due to Employer's inability to accommodate his physical restrictions, Employee filed a worker's compensation claim for permanent and total disability. The Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) determined that Employee was permanently and totally disabled as a result of his work injury. LIRC made this determination after denying Employer's last-minute request to cross-examine or make further inquires of Dr. Jerome Ebert, an independent physician appointed by the Department of Workforce Development to examine Schaefer and report on the cause of his disability. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Employer did not have a statutory right to cross-examine Dr. Ebert, (2) LIRC did not violate Employer's due process rights when it declined to remand for cross-examination, and (3) LIRC did not erroneously exercise its discretion by declining to remand for a third time to allow Dr. Ebert to be questioned further. View "Aurora Consol. Health Care v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation acquired a parcel of land owned by Country Side, a portion of which Country Side leased to the Lamar Company. Country Side and Lamar agreed that all proceeds would be transferred to Country Side, save for $120,000, of which the parties were unable to agree to a division. Consequently, Lamar filed a claim for petition, seeking the full amount on deposit. Country Side responded by petitioning for the full amount. The circuit court granted Country Side's petition and ordered the $120,000 to be disbursed to Country Side, concluding that Lamar had lost its right to seek a share of the award of damages issued to Country Side and Lamar by failing to join in Country Side's appeal of the award. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Lamar had not lost its right to seek a share of the award of damages issued to Country Side and Lamar, and therefore, the circuit court improperly dismissed Lamar's claim for petition. Remanded. View "Lamar Co., LLC v. Country Side Rest., Inc." on Justia Law

In this breach of contract case, the jury found that a contract existed between Erie Insurance Exchange and Best Price Plumbing but that Erie did not breach the contract. The circuit court granted Best Price's motion after verdict to change the jury's answer. The court then concluded as a matter of law that a breach occurred, and it entered judgment in favor of Best Price. The court of appeals reversed and reinstated the jury verdict. Best Price appealed, asserting that under State. v. Kenosha Home Telephone Co., it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in the jury instructions was forfeited because the jury was not asked to answer any questions that would support the application of the Kenosha Home Telephone rule as a matter of law; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, and the circuit court was clearly wrong when it changed that answer to the verdict question. View "Best Price Plumbing, Inc. v. Erie Ins. Exch." on Justia Law

Thomas and Barbara Jandre filed an action against, inter alia, a physician and her insurer, asserting (1) the physician negligently diagnosed Thomas with Bell's palsy, and (2) the physician breached her duty to inform a patient by failing to inform Thomas of a diagnostic test that was available to rule out the possibility of a stroke. The circuit court found that the physician's diagnosis of Bell's palsy was not negligent but that the physician was negligent with respect to her duty to inform the patient. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision after applying the reasonable patient standard, holding that under circumstances of the present case involving a non-negligent diagnosis of Bell's palsy, the circuit court could not determine, as a matter of law, that the physician had no duty to inform Thomas of the possibility that the cause of his symptoms might be a blocked artery and of the availability of alternative, non-invasive means of ruling out or confirming the source of his symptoms. View "Jandre v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis." on Justia Law

Defendant Devin Felix was convicted of second-degree intentional homicide. The court of appeals reversed, holding that statements and physical evidence obtained from Defendant outside of the home after Miranda warnings were given and waived following a warrantless in-home arrest made in violation of Payton v. New York were not sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful arrest as to be lawful. At issue before the Supreme Court was which analysis governed the admissibility of such evidence, Brown v. Illinois or New York v. Harris, both decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals after adopting the Harris exception to the exclusionary rule for certain evidence obtained after a Payton violation, holding that, where police had probable cause to arrest before the unlawful entry, a warrantless arrest from Defendant's home in violation of Payton required neither the suppression of statements outside of the home after Miranda rights were given and waived nor the suppression of physical evidence obtained from Defendant outside of the home. View "State v. Felix" on Justia Law

Michael May sought to reduce his child support payments to his former wife, Suzanne May, approximately one year after entry of an order by the circuit court establishing a thirty-three-month unmodifiable floor for child support payments pursuant to a stipulation entered into by the parties. The court of appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court, holding that the Mays' stipulation and order for child support was enforceable, as (1) the parties freely and knowingly entered into the stipulation at issue, and the terms of the stipulation were fair and equitable to the parties; (2) the agreement was not contrary to public policy because the circuit court retained its equitable power to consider circumstances in existence when the stipulation was challenged that were unforeseen by the parties when they entered into the agreement if those circumstances adversely affected the best interests of the children; and (3) Michael did not demonstrate the existence of such circumstances. View "May v. May" on Justia Law

Robert Johnson filed a summons and complaint against Cintas Corporation, alleging he had automobile liability insurance coverage through Cintas. Johnson subsequently served his summons and complaint upon the registered agent for Cintas Corporation No. 2, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cintas. Johnson then amended his summons and complaint to name Cintas No. 2 as the correct defendant. The circuit court granted default judgment against Cintas No. 2 and denied that Cintas No. 2 was entitled to notice of the amended summons and complaint. The court of appeals reversed, holding that because Johnson's summons and complaint did not name Cintas No. 2 as a defendant, the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over Cintas No. 2, and therefore, the default judgment was void. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that service in this case was fundamentally defective because Johnson failed to name Cintas No. 2 as a defendant in his summons and complaint, and therefore, the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over Cintas No. 2, regardless of the manner in which Cintas No. 2 held itself out to the public or to Johnson specifically. View "Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2 " on Justia Law