Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled no contest to one count of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, in violation of Wis. Stat. 346.63(1)(a), second offense. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case to the circuit court to suppress the evidence obtained from Defendant’s blood, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the emergency medical technician (EMT) who drew Defendant’s blood was operating “under the direction of a physician” as required by Wis. Stat. 343.305(5)(b). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the EMT who drew Defendant’s blood was a “person acting under the direction of a physician” and that Defendant’s blood was drawn in a constitutionally reasonable manner. View "State v. Kozel" on Justia Law

This medical malpractice case was based on the claim that Dr. Kim Balink was negligent in the prenatal care of Braylon Seifert’s mother and in Braylon’s delivery. The jury returned a special verdict finding that Dr. Balink was negligent in the delivery of Braylon and in the prenatal care of Braylon and that this negligence was a cause of injury to Braylon. The circuit court entered judgment for Braylon for $135,000 in medical expenses and $750,000 in pain and suffering. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in applying Wis. Stat. 907.02(1) and admitting as reliable Braylon’s obstetrical expert witness’s expert medical testimony on the standard of reasonable care based on his personal experience; (2) the circuit court did not err in concluding that Braylon’s counsel’s remarks during closing argument did not constitute prejudicial error justifying a new trial; and (3) a new trial should not be granted in the interests of justice. View "Seifert v. Balink" on Justia Law

The research director for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin submitted a public records request to the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting certain documents and recordings of presentations made at various training programs. The DOJ identified two records responsive to the request - two video recordings - but refused to release the recordings after concluding that the public interest in nondisclosure outweighed the general presumption favoring release. The Democratic Party petitioned the circuit court for a writ of mandamus seeking release of the records. The circuit court ordered both recordings disclosed. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the legislative presumption in favor of disclosure was outweighed by the public harm that would result from disclosure. View "Democratic Party of Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Department of Justice" on Justia Law

Regency West Apartments sued the City of Racine to recover refunds from allegedly excessive taxation for tax years 2012 and 2013. The circuit court dismissed Regency West’s claims. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the City’s appraisals of Regency West’s property complied with Wisconsin law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the valuation methodologies the City used for the assessments at issue did not comply with Wisconsin law; (2) the lower courts erred in concluding that Regency West failed to overcome the presumption of correctness for the 2012 and 2013 tax assessments; and (3) Regency West proved that the City’s tax assessments for the tax years at issue were excessive. Remanded to the circuit court to calculate the amount of Regency West’s refund. View "Regency West Apartments LLC v. City of Racine" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of drunk driving, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court’s order denying Defnednat’s motion to suppress, concluding that the warrantless entry by a deputy with the sheriff’s department into Defendant’s garage was not justified by the exigent circumstance of the deputy’s “hot pursuit” of a fleeing suspect who had committed jailable offenses. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the deputy’s warrantless entry into Defendant’s garage and subsequent arrest of Defendant were constitutional because they were justified by the exigent circumstance of hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect who had committed jailable offenses. View "State v. Weber" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced under 2009 Wis. Act 28, which allowed inmates the opportunity to earn “positive adjustment time,” by which inmates could obtain early release from prison. 2011 Wis. Act 38 retroactively repealed positive adjustment time. Singh filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the new legislation violated the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions because it delayed inmates’ release from prison by up to ninety days. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the retroactive application of 2011 Wis. Act 38 was an ex post facto violation. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the retroactive repeal of positive adjustment time is an ex post facto violation, and (2) 2011 Wis. Act 38 violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws because it results in a longer period of incarceration and, consequently, makes the punishment for an offense more burdensome after it was committed. View "State ex rel. Singh v. Kemper" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempting to flee a traffic officer and operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent. Defendant’s presentence investigation report included an attached COMPAS risk assessment, an evidence-based risk assessment tool that provides decisional support for the Department of Corrections when managing offenders. The circuit court referenced the COMPAS risk score along with other sentencing factors in ruling out probation for Defendant. Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief requesting a new sentencing hearing, arguing that the circuit court’s consideration of a COMPAS risk assessment at sentencing violated his right to due process.The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) if used properly, a circuit court’s consideration of a COMPAS risk assessment at sentencing does not violate a defendant’s right to due process; (2) the circuit court’s use of the COMPAS risk scores in this case was not an abuse of discretion; and (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in considering read-in charges in the plea agreement. View "State v. Loomis" on Justia Law

This case required the Supreme Court to reexamine State v. Shiffra, modified by State v. Green, (hereinafter Shiffra/Green), under which a defendant can acquire a complainant’s privileged mental health treatment records via a motion for in camera review if the defendant demonstrates “a reasonable likelihood that the records contain relevant information necessary to a determination of guilt or innocence….” Here the complainant alleged that Defendant sexually assaulted her as a child. Defendant filed a pretrial motion pursuant to Shiffra/Green, seeking an in camera inspection of the complainant’s privileged mental health treatment records. The circuit court granted the motion. Further, the court informed the complainant that if she refused to turn over the records, her testimony would be barred at trial. The complainant refused to give up her mental health treatment records, and the circuit court barred her from testifying at trial. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court overruled Shiffra/Green and its progeny, holding that Shiffra/Green improperly relied on Pennsylvania v. Ritchie when it invented a right to access privileged information via a motion for in camera review and cannot be grounded in any other legal basis. View "State v. Lynch" on Justia Law

This case was one of several cases involving litigation between Lands’ End and the City of Dodgeville challenging the City’s property tax assessment of Lands’ End’s headquarters. In 2009, Lands’ End made an offer of settlement, which the City rejected. Eventually, the court of appeals remanded the matter to the circuit court with directions to enter judgment in favor of Lands’ End in the amount of $724,292 plus statutory interest. At issue on remand was whether Lands’ End was entitled to interest at the statutory rate of interest in effect when the offer of settlement was made under Wis. Stat. 807.01(4) or at the statutory rate of interest in effect when Lands’ End recovered the judgment under the amended version of the statute. The circuit court awarded interest at “1 percent plus the prime rate,” the rate in the amended version of the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Lands’ End did not have a vested right in the twelve percent interest rate in effect in section 807.01(4) at the time Lands’ End made its offer of settlement; and (2) awarding interest under the amended version of the statute did not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. View "Lands' End, Inc. v. City of Dodgeville" on Justia Law

In 1990, Defendant was convicted in Minnesota of a first-offense operating while intoxicated (OWI). In 1992, the Eau Claire County Circuit Court entered a civil forfeiture judgment against Defendant for another first-offense OWI. In 2014, Defendant filed a motion to reopen and vacate her 1992 first-offense OWI civil forfeiture judgment because it was a second OWI offense improperly charged as a first offense, thus implicating subject matter jurisdiction. The circuit court voided Defendant’s 1992 Eau Claire County conviction on subject matter jurisdiction grounds. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant forfeited her right to challenge her 1992 first-offense OWI judgment by failing to timely raise it; and (2) therefore, the circuit court erred when it granted Defendant’s motion to reopen and vacate her 1992 first-offense OWI civil forfeiture judgment. View "City of Eau Claire v. Booth" on Justia Law