Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this original action requesting a declaration that the governor exceeded his constitutional authority in partially vetoing appropriation bills the Supreme Court declared that the vetoes to the school bus modernization fund, the local roads improvement fund, and the vapor products tax were unconstitutional and invalid.Petitioners asserted that four series of partial vetoes in 2019 Wis. Act 9 - the state's 2019-21 biennial budget bill - were unconstitutional. While no rationale had the support of a majority of the Supreme Court, a majority reached a conclusion with respect to the constitutionality of each series of vetoes. The Supreme Court declared rights such that the vetoes to the school bus modernization fund, local roads improvement fund, and vapor products tax were unconstitutional and granted relief such that the portions of the enrolled bills that were vetoed are in full force and effect as drafted by the legislature. View "Bartlett v. Evers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original action challenging whether two partial vetoes in the 2017-19 biennial budget exceeded the governor's constitutional authority, holding that this action was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.Two of the governor's vetoes struck individual digits from dates written in numeral form. Petitioners argued that the digit vetoes violated the constitutional prohibition against creating new words by striking individual letters in words. The biennial budget was enacted in September 2017, and Petitioners waited until October 2019 to file this action. Respondents urged the Supreme Court not to reach the merits in Petitioners' petition for original action and instead to bar the action pursuant to the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court dismissed the original action, holding that where the 2017-19 biennium has closed and a new biennial budget as since been enacted relying in part on the law enacted in 2017, Respondents established the elements of laches and demonstrated that application of the equitable doctrine was appropriate in this case. View "Wisconsin Small Businesses United, Inc. v. Brennan" 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

In this case arising from the enactment of 2017 Wis. Act 369 and 2017 Wis. Act 370 the Supreme Court held that Plaintiffs did not meet their high burden to demonstrate that the challenged provisions were unconstitutional in all of their applications, and therefore, the motion to dismiss the facial challenges to these claims should have been granted.The acts at issue were passed by the legislature and signed by the governor after the 2018 election but before the legislature, governor, and attorney general were sworn into office. Plaintiffs - several labor organizations and individual taxpayers - filed suit against the leaders of both houses of the legislature, the Governor, and the Attorney General, claiming that many of the enacted provisions violate separation of powers principles. The legislative defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that for all provisions where arguments were sufficiently developed, the legislative defendants successfully showed that the motion to dismiss the facial challenge to these laws should have been granted. View "Service Employees International Union, Local 1 v. Vos" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming in part the order of the circuit court that Appellant pay restitution to the victims of his crime, holding that a civil settlement did not preclude the restitution ordered and that the restitution order was a reasonable exercise of the circuit court's discretion under the applicable law and facts presented.Appellant collided with T.K.'s vehicle, resulting in T.K.'s death. Appellant and his insurance company reached a civil settlement with T.K.'s adult children. Appellant subsequently pled no contest to homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle. The circuit court ordered restitution to the adult children. The court of appeals reduced the amount of restitution because the amount included income lost as a result of the adult children's spouses missing work due to Appellant's criminal conduct. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals (1) properly determined that the civil settlement did not preclude the circuit court from ordering restitution; and (2) erred by reducing the restitution amount because a victim suffers actual pecuniary damages when his or her spouse does not work, as the victim is a member of the marital community that is affected by the loss of income. View "State v. Muth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for possession with intent to deliver cocaine, holding that the Wisconsin Constitution permits law enforcement to ask drivers stopped for a traffic violation to exit the vehicle, inquire about the presence of weapons, and request consent to search the driver.Defendant moved to suppress the evidence found during the search of the vehicle, contending that it was fruit of an unlawful search because the arresting officer's actions unlawfully extended the stop, and he lacked reasonable suspicion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officer did not impermissibly extend Defendant's traffic stop beyond constitutional boundaries because his actions were negligently burdensome directly related to officer safety and therefore part of the stop's mission. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle, holding that the circuit court did not err in its evidentiary rulings.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court (1) improperly excluded the expert testimony of Dr. Lawrence White, and (2) erred in denying his motion to suppress statements that he made to law enforcement because he was not read the Miranda warnings or, in the alternative, because his statements were not voluntarily made. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court properly excluded Dr. White's exposition testimony on the grounds that it did not fit with the facts of Defendant's case; (2) Defendant was subject to custodial interrogation and was not read the Miranda warnings, but the admission of those statements was harmless error; and (3) all of Defendant's statements were voluntary. View "State v. Dobbs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the implementation and enforcement of the Town of Delafield's seasonal weight limitations on certain Town roads as authorized by the Town's ordinance did not conflict with and therefore was not preempted by the the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), 49 U.S.C. 31114, and its related regulations.A truck driver for Central Transport Kriewaldt was ticketed for operating a tractor-trailer in violation of the Town's seasonal weight limitation authorized by its ordinance. Central Transport admitted that it violated the Town's ordinance but argued that the Town may not have such a system because the limitation was preempted, and therefore disallowed, by the STAA. The Supreme Court held (1) the STAA's reach mandated only reasonable access; and (2) the facts of this case showed that reasonable access was provided, and the Town's seasonal weight limitation was not preempted by the STAA. View "Town Of Delafield v. Central Transport Kriewaldt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's denial of Defendant's suppression motion, holding that the deputies in this case were not acting as bona fide community caretakers when they seized Defendant's vehicle without a warrant, and therefore, the seizure and ensuing inventory search were both unconstitutional.Defendant was stopped for speeding and had been driving with a suspended operators license. The deputies told Defendant that department policy required them to take the vehicle to an impound lot. Prior to the tow, the deputies conducted an inventory search of the vehicle and discovered a firearm. Defendant was arrested for possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the "community caretaker" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement did not justify seizure of the vehicle. The circuit court denied the motion. Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief challenging the denial of his suppression motion. The circuit court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the deputies were not acting as community caretakers when they decided to impound Defendant's vehicle; and (2) therefore, the seizure and ensuing inventory search were unconstitutional. View "State v. Brooks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Plaintiff's former criminal defense attorney, on Plaintiff's legal malpractice claim, holding that nothing about Plaintiff's case warranted developing an exception to the actual innocence rule.The actual innocence rule requires a criminal defendant who brings a legal malpractice action against his defense attorney to establish that the defendant did not commit the crime of which he was convicted. Plaintiff conceded that he was guilty but argued that Wisconsin courts should create an exception to the actual innocence rule. The circuit court declined to adopt a novel exception to prevailing law, applied the actual innocence rule, and granted summary judgment for Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of establishing a compelling reason to change existing law; and (2) because Plaintiff conceded guilt, his claim of legal malpractice was legally barred. View "Skindzelewski v. Smith" on Justia Law