Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant hired an independent contractor to spray herbicide on his property. The spraying caused extensive, permanent damage to seventy-nine trees on the property of his neighbors, Plaintiffs. At issue in this case was whether Defendant could be liable for the negligence of the independent contractor he hired to spray herbicides under the “inherently dangerous” exception to the independent contractor rule. The Supreme Court held here that Defendant could be liable for the acts of the independent contractor on the grounds that the spraying was an inherently dangerous activity because it posed a risk of naturally expected harm, and it was possible to reduce the risk. Remanded for determinations to be made as to whether Defendant exercised ordinary care to prevent damage to Plaintiffs’ property. View "Brandenburg v. Luethi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Milwaukee County sheriff’s deputy, was injured while on duty by a motorist to whom she had just given directions and was allegedly helping to get back into the lane of moving traffic. Plaintiff sought coverage under her employer’s underinsured motorist policy, which pays sums owed by an underinsured tortfeasor to an insured person who is injured while “using an automobile” within the scope of her employment or authority. Plaintiff claimed that she was “using” the automobile that hit her because she was essentially controlling the vehicle. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the insurer. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that Defendant was not using the vehicle at the time of her injury. View "Jackson v. Wis. County Mut. Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

In Milwaukee County Circuit Court Defendant pled guilty to criminal charges. At the time of her arrest, Defendant was on probation after pleading guilty to three criminal charges in Waukesha County. Consequently, the Waukesha County Circuit Court sentenced Defendant to a term of confinement and a term of probation. The Milwaukee County Circuit Court subsequently sentenced Defendant to a term of confinement and extended supervision. The next day, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court sua sponte recalled the case and modified Defendant’s sentences due to the court’s mistaken belief in the length of Defendant’s Waukesha County sentence. The result was a nine-month increase in Defendant’s overall time of incarceration. Defendant filed a post-conviction motion to reinstate her original sentence, arguing that the circuit court violated her constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not have a legitimate expectation of finality, and therefore double jeopardy principles were not implicated, and the circuit court acted appropriately in resentencing Defendant. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought recovery for her husband’s death, which occurred at a snowmobile event in Michigan. Plaintiff moved for a declaratory order determining that Michigan’s Wrongful Death Act applied to the damage issues in her lawsuit because Wisconsin’s wrongful death statute does not apply to deaths caused outside Wisconsin. The circuit court determined that Wisconsin law would apply to the damage issues in this case. The court of appeals disagreed and concluded that the Michigan law on wrongful death would apply. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Michigan law applied in this case. View "Waranka v. Wadena Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to the manufacture or delivery of THC. After announcing that it would place Defendant on probation, the circuit court declined defense counsel’s request to withhold its discretion on whether to expunge Defendant’s record until the end of the probationary period. In denying the request, the circuit court concluded that its decision whether to expunge an offender’s record must be made at the time of sentencing. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, if a circuit court is going to exercise its discretion to expunge a record, the discretion must be exercised at the time of the sentencing proceeding. View "State v. Matasek" on Justia Law

In 2009, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against, among other defendants, First American Title Insurance Company, with whom Plaintiffs had a title insurance policy for their property, for failing to defend the title to their property. As part of the settlement between Plaintiffs and defendants John and Jane Stevenson, the Stevensons paid Plaintiffs for an assignment of their rights under the title insurance policy, including any claims against First American. The Stevensons subsequently filed a cross-claim against First American for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and bad faith for refusing to defend the title to Plaintiffs’ lot. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Stevensons and awarded the Stevensons compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages to punish First American’s bad faith. The circuit court allowed the bad faith finding and the punitive damages award to stand. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the punitive damages award in this case was excessive and deprived First American of its right to due process, and (2) the appropriate amount of punitive damages in this case was $210,000. View "Kimble v. Land Concepts, Inc." on Justia Law

John Zeverino owned a semi-tractor that was leased to Taylor Truck Line. In 2009, the tractor was involved in a multi-vehicle accident that occurred while Zeverino was on his way to a maintenance facility for repairs to the tractor. Acceptance Casualty Insurance Company and Great West Casualty Company both issued liability insurance policies for the semi-tractor. Acceptance provided a non-trucking use policy, and Great West provided a commercial truckers’ policy. Each insurer filed a motion for summary judgment asserting the other was responsible for coverage for the accident. The circuit court concluded that the Acceptance policy provided coverage. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Acceptance’s non-trucking use policy provided coverage for the accident, and neither of the two exclusions in Acceptance’s policy precluded coverage. View "Casey v. Smith" on Justia Law

In 2005, Ardonis Greer pled guilty to criminal charges and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment. In 2007, Greer began serving his period of probation. Subsequently, Greer was erroneously issued a discharge certificate stating that he was discharged from supervision. In 2010, Greer pled no contest to intimidating a witness. Thereafter, the Department of Corrections (DOC) discovered that Greer was still purportedly serving the probation term from his 2004 conviction and initiated revocation proceedings against Greer. The Division of Hearings and Appeals ordered Greer’s probation revoked. Greer filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the DOC lost jurisdiction to revoke his probation when it issued the discharge certificate. The circuit court reversed the Division’s decision. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the erroneous issuance of a discharge certificate did not deprive the DOC of jurisdiction to revoke Greer’s probation because his court-ordered term of probation had not expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the DOC retained jurisdiction over Greer despite the erroneous issuance of the discharge certificate; (2) Greer’s due process rights were not violated; and (3) the circuit court, sitting in certiorari, was not empowered to equitably estop the DOC from revoking Greer’s probation. View "Greer v. Wiedenhoeft" on Justia Law

On July 3, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in State v. Johnson, which affirmed an unpublished decision of the court of appeals and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. On July 22, 2013, both Defendant and the State filed motions for reconsideration of the Court’s decision. The Court granted Defendant’s motion for reconsideration to clarify that the Court’s previous opinion represented a deadlock. Specifically, because a majority of the Court did not reach consensus under precedent so as to decide the issue presented on appeal and the Court was deadlocked, the court of appeals decision remained the law of the case and must be affirmed. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to six of the twenty-two felony counts of physical abuse of a child filed against her. The circuit court accepted Defendant’s pleas. Before Defendant was sentenced, she moved the court pro se to withdraw her pleas. The circuit court denied Defendant’s motion to withdraw her pleas, concluding that the State would be substantially prejudiced if Defendant were allowed to withdraw her pleas because the State would be preventing from presenting at trial important audiovisual interviews of the victim, who was now over sixteen years old, and without the audiovisual evidence, it would be more difficult for the State to prove its case. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it determined that the State would be substantially prejudiced if Defendant were allowed to withdraw her pleas. View "State v. Lopez" on Justia Law