Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded no contest to first-degree recklessly endangering safety as domestic abuse. In the plea colloquy accepting Defendant’s plea, the circuit court misstated the potential punishment if Defendant were convicted. Defendant later filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The circuit court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the cause with instructions to grant Defendant’s motion. In so doing, the court relied on the remedy set forth in State v. Bangert for cases where a circuit court fails to comply with Wis. Stat. 971.08(1) or other mandatory duties at a plea colloquy and the defendant does not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter his plea. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the circuit court’s defect could be remedied by reducing the sentence to the punishment Defendant was informed and believed he could receive or whether Defendant must be allowed to withdraw his plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of the present case, Bangert and State v. Brown governed, and Defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea. Remanded with instructions to grant Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. View "State v. Finley" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle and operating without a license, causing death. The convictions arose after Defendant killed an individual while he was driving under the influence of alcohol in the wrong direction on a freeway. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to fifteen years of initial confinement followed by seven years of extended supervision. Defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing, inter alia, that the sentencing court improperly considered his immigration status at sentencing. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court’s comments at sentencing did not deny Defendant due process in the form of reliance on an improper sentencing factor. View "State v. Gayton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the insured of Dairyland, sustained bodily injury and property damage while operating his motorcycle. After paying plaintiff all proceeds to which he was entitled under the Dairyland policy, and after plaintiff had settled with the tortfeasor's insurer, Dairyland sought and obtained subrogation from the tortfeasor's insurer for the property damages that it previously paid to plaintiff. Plaintiff then demanded Dairyland pay him the funds it obtained on its subrogation claim. When Dairyland refused, plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith. The court concluded that the made whole doctrine does not apply to preclude Dairyland from retaining the funds it received from its subrogation claim because the equities favor Dairyland: (1) Dairyland fully paid plaintiff all he bargained for under his Dairyland policy, which included the policy's limits for bodily injury and 100% of plaintiff's property damage; (2) plaintiff had priority in settling with the tortfeasor's insurer; and (3) if Dairyland had not proceeded on its subrogation claim, plaintiff would have had no access to additional funds from the tortfeasor's insurer. The court also concluded that Dairyland did not act in bad faith. Accordingly, the court reversed the court of appeals decision in all respects. View "Dufour v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Wis. Act 76 substantially changed the circumstances under which the Department of Children and Families (DCF) may license and certify childcare providers in Wisconsin. One provision in the new law, Wis. Stat. 48.685(5)(br)5., "imposes a lifetime ban on licensure" and certification for persons who have been convicted of specific crimes. After plaintiff's license was revoked based upon a 1986 conviction for misdemeanor welfare fraud, she filed suit challenging the statute. Both the Dane Circuit Court and the court of appeals rejected plaintiff's challenges. The court concluded that the statute rationally advances the legislature's fraud reduction objective in a manner that outweighs any interest that plaintiff might have in eligibility to receive payments through Wisconsin Shares. Because the court concluded that the statute denies plaintiff neither due process nor equal protection of the law, the court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. View "Blake v. Jossart" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with first-degree intentional homicide. Defendant moved to suppress her incriminating statements made during a six-hour interrogation conducted without a Miranda warning and evidence of the search of her house conducted after the interrogation. The circuit court suppressed Defendant’s statements and the physical evidence obtained from her house, which the court concluded was fruit of the poisonous tree. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that the officers searching Defendant’s house would have discovered the incriminating physical evidence during their search conducted pursuant to a search warrant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) application of the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule does not require that the State prove the absence of bad faith by the officers who intentionally engaged in the misconduct that provides the basis for exclusion; and (2) the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that officers inevitably would have discovered the physical evidence at issue. Remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Water Well, which was insured under a commercial general liability primary policy (CGL policy) with Consolidated Insurance Company, was sued by Argonaut Insurance Company. The complaint alleged that Water Well and its employees were negligent in the installation and reinstallation of a water pump and breached their contractual obligations. Water Well tendered its defense to its insurer. Consolidated denied Water Well’s defense tender, stating that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Water Well under the CGL policy. After settling with Argonaut, Water Well filed suit against Consolidated, alleging that Consolidated breached its duty to defend Water Well in the action initiated by Argonaut. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Consolidated, concluding that “there is no covered claim and therefore there was no duty to defend.” Applying the four-corners rule, the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Water Well’s request to craft a limited exception to the four-corners rule is rejected; and (2) Consolidated did not breach its duty to defend Water Well because certain exclusions in the CGL policy eliminated coverage. View "Water Well Solutions Serv. Group Inc. v. Consolidated Ins. Co." on Justia Law

From 2007 to 2009, a number of lawsuits involving Plaintiff, the trustee of two trusts, were filed throughout the country. Plaintiff asked his professional liability insurer, Houston Casualty Company, to defend him in the lawsuits. Houston Casualty determined that it had no obligation to either defend or indemnify Plaintiff in connection with any of the lawsuits. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Houston Casualty alleging, inter alia, breach of the duty to defend and bad faith. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Houston Casualty, concluding that the insurer had not breached its duty to defend Plaintiff. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the complaints and counterclaim against Plaintiff did not allege facts which, if proven, would constitute claims covered under the policy Houston Casualty issued to Plaintiff, and therefore, Houston Casualty did not breach its duty when it refused to defend Plaintiff in the lawsuits at issue. View "Marks v. Houston Cas. Co." on Justia Law

The complex insurance coverage dispute arose out of a 2007 fire that destroyed portions of a home that was still under construction. Fontana Builders, Inc., the construction contractor, and James and Suzy Accola, the occupants/presumptive purchasers, had separate insurance policies. The Accolas settled with Chubb Insurance Co., the insurer that provided their homeowner’s policy. Assurance Company of America, which had issued a builder’s risk policy to Fontana, denied all coverage for the fire. Fontana commenced this action against Assurance alleging breach of the insurance contract and bad faith failure to pay under the policy. Fontana’s lender, AnchorBank, FSB, eventually intervened. After a retrial, the jury found that the Assurance policy did not provide coverage for Fontana’s fire loss, concluding that the Chubb policy “applied” to the underlying facts so as to terminate Fontana’s builder’s risk coverage. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that that the homeowner’s policy issued by Chubb to the Accolas did not apply so as to terminate Fontana’s builder’s risk policy from Assurance. Remanded. View "Fontana Builders, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of Am." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether an element of Wis. Stat. 948.075(1r) - use of a “computerized communication system” - was satisfied when Defendant used his cell phone to exchange texts with, and receive picture messages from, the fourteen-year-old victim. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime in violation of section 948.075(1r). The court of appeals reversed, sua sponte holding that a jury instruction misdirected the jury by asking it to determine whether the cell phone itself constituted the computerized communication system rather than asking whether Defendant’s uses of the cell phone constituted communication via a computerized communication system. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the jury instruction here accurately stated the law, and even if the instruction was erroneous, it was harmless error; (2) section 948.075 is not unconstitutionally vague; and (3) the court of appeals erred when it exercised its discretion authority to reverse Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. McKellips" on Justia Law

Since 1938, the City of Milwaukee has required its city employees to comply with a residency requirement. The residency requirement is set forth in section 5-02 of the City’s charter. In 2013, the Legislature enacted Wis. Stat. 66.0502, which bans residency requirements. Despite enactment of the statute, the City continued to enforce its residency requirement, claiming it had the authority to do so under the state Constitution’s home rule amendment. The Milwaukee Police Association sought relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that the City can no longer enforce its residency requirement because section 66.0502 trumps section 5-02 of the City’s charter. With respect to Association’s section 1983 claim, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision not to award relief or damages, concluding that because section 66.0502 did not involve a matter of statewide concern and did not affect all local government units uniformly, it did not trump the City’s ordinance. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) section 66.0502 precludes the City from enforcing its residency requirement; and (2) the Police Association is not entitled to relief or damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 because the Association failed to meet the requirements necessary to prevail on a section 1983 claim. View "Milwaukee Police Ass’n v. City of Milwaukee" on Justia Law