Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The City of Oshkosh levied special assessments against a corner lot property owned by CED Properties, LLC (“CED”). The City issued two special assessments, one for the portion of CED’s property bordering Jackson Street and one for the portion running alongside Murdock Avenue. CED appealed the special assessments by filing a complaint with the circuit court. CED then filed an amended complaint well past the ninety-day time limit to appeal. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to the City, holding that CED failed to appeal the Jackson Street special assessment within the required ninety-day time limit. The court of appeals affirmed but on different grounds. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) CED’s original complaint, which was filed within the required ninety-day time period, was sufficient to appeal not only the Murdock Avenue special assessment but also the Jackson Street special assessment; and (2) CED’s complaint was sufficient to place the City on notice that CED intended to appeal both the Jackson Street and Murdock Avenue special assessments. View "CED Props., LLC v. City of Oshkosh" on Justia Law

The Town Assessor valued Taxpayer’s real property at $27,500, classified the property as “productive forest land,” and assessed the property at $27,500. Taxpayer claimed that the Assessor’s classification of his property was erroneous and that the Town Board of Review should change the classification to “undeveloped land,” which would result in an assessment of $13,750. The Board refused to lower the assessment. The circuit court and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in light of the evidence that the Board received, the Board could reasonably conclude that Taxpayer did not demonstrate that the classification was incorrect and that the assessment should be lowered. View "Sausen v. Town of Black Creek Bd. of Review" on Justia Law

Ronald Belding was injured in an accident with an uninsured driver. Belding and his wife had two policies with State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, which provided coverage for their two vehicles, a Ford Ranger, which was involved in the accident, and a Mercury Villager. State Farm paid the Beldings the maximum uninsured motorist coverage under the Ford Ranger policy, and the Beldings sought to collect excess damages through the uninsured motorist coverage in their Mercury Villager policy. The circuit court granted summary judgment for State Farm, concluding that a “drive-other-car exclusion” in the Mercury Villager policy precluded coverage. The court of appeals reversed, determining that Wis. Stat. 632.32(6)(d), which prohibited anti-stacking clauses, barred the drive-other-car exclusion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, pursuant to the prohibition on anti-stacking clauses in section 632.32(6)(d), State Farm could not use the drive-other-car exclusion in the Mercury Villager policy to prevent the Beldings from stacking the uninsured motorist coverage of up to three vehicles owned and insured by them. View "Belding v. Demoulin" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with sexually assaulting his niece. During trial, the jury asked the circuit court if it needed to agree on the location of the assault, and the court responded, “no.” The court of appeals remanded for a new trial, concluding that this exchange permitted the jury to speculate beyond the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court’s response of “no” did not deprive Defendant of a unanimous verdict because, where the location of the crime was not one of the essential elements of the crime, the jurors did not need to unanimously agree on the location; and (2) Defendant failed to show that the court’s response of “no” was ambiguous or reasonably likely to cause the jury to apply the jury instructions in a manner that violated due process, as the response was unlikely to mislead the jury into believing that the victim’s credibility was irrelevant and that it could speculate beyond the evidence. View "State v. Badzinski" on Justia Law

Mother and Father chose to treat their eleven-year-old daughter's undiagnosed illness with prayer rather than medicine. Their daughter subsequently died from diabetic ketoacidosis resulting from untreated juvenile onset diabetes mellitus. In separate trials with different juries, Mother and Father were each convicted of second-degree reckless homicide. The parents appealed, arguing (1) their convictions for choosing treatment through prayer violated due process fair notice requirements; and (2) their convictions should be reversed because the real controversy was not fully tried due to erroneous jury instructions and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding, inter alia, (1) the second-degree reckless homicide statute and the criminal child abuse statute provided sufficient notice that the parents' conduct could have criminal consequences if their daughter died; (2) the jury instructions on parents' duty to provide medical care were not erroneous, as the statutory provision protecting treatment through prayer does not negate the legal duty to provide medical care in a second degree reckless homicide prosecution; (3) trial counsels did not provide ineffective assistance; and (4) the controversy was fully tried where the circuit court properly refused to instruct the jury on the parents' sincerely held religious belief in prayer.View "State v. Neumann" on Justia Law