Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant-sellers obtained a policy from American Family Mutual Insurance Company insuring an apartment building. When preparing for the sale of the building, Defendants signed a real estate condition report stating that they were not aware of the presence of asbestos on the premises. After Plaintiff-buyers purchased the building, their contractor discovered asbestos in the building. Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendants for breach of contract/warranty and negligence in failing to adequately disclose defective conditions. The circuit court held that American Family had no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants because an asbestos exclusion in the American Family policy precluded coverage. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the policy precluded coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the asbestos exclusion in the American Family policy precluded coverage for the losses alleged by Plaintiffs. View "Phillips v. Parmelee" on Justia Law

After refusing to consent to chemical testing to determine his blood alcohol content, Defendant pleaded not guilty to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC). Defendant failed to request a refusal hearing within the statutory ten-day time limit. A jury acquitted Defendant of the OWI and PAC charges, and the circuit court dismissed the refusal charge due to improper notice. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court’s finding of improper notice and remanded for the circuit court to exercise its discretion as to whether to dismiss the refusal charge. The State appealed, arguing that the court of appeals improperly extended the holding of State v. Brooks when it instructed the circuit court to determine whether it would exercise its discretion to dismiss the refusal charge. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals improperly extended the holding of Brooks when it held that a circuit court could dismiss a refusal charge under the circumstances presented by this case, as a circuit court has no discretionary authority to dismiss a refusal charge when a defendant fails to request a refusal hearing within the statutory ten-day time period. Remanded. View "State v. Bentdahl" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography after making incriminating statements to his probation agent. The statements led directly to Defendant's conviction. Defendant appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion to suppress the admissions to his probation agent, claiming they were compelled, testimonial, and incriminating in violation of his privilege against self-incrimination. The court of appeals upheld the circuit court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the facts in the record were insufficient to show compulsion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was insufficient evidence in the record to show that Defendant's statements were compelled. View "State v. Sahs" on Justia Law

This case arose from territory-related disputes between two franchisees, Paul Davis Restoration of S.E. Wisconsin, Inc. (Southeast) and Paul Davis Restoration of Northeast Wisconsin (Northeast). The results of an arbitration process included an award for Southeast against Northeast, which is the name under which EA Green Bay, LLC (Green Bay) did business. Green Bay opposed the subsequent garnishment action on the grounds that the judgment, entered against Northeast only, was unenforceable. The circuit court held that any valid judgment against Northeast was also enforceable against Green Bay. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) if the name under which a person or corporation does business is simply another way to refer to a single legal entity and constitutes no entity distinct from the person or corporation who does business, then a judgment against the "doing business as" or "d/b/a" name is enforceable against the legal entity from which it is indistinct; and (2) therefore, the judgment against Green Bay's d/b/a designation, Northeast, was enforceable against Green Bay.View "Paul Davis Restoration of Se. Wis., Inc. v. Paul Davis Restoration of Ne. Wis." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of fleeing or attempting to elude a traffic officer. Defendant appealed, contending that the jury instructions given in this case required the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant violated Wis. Stat. 346.04(3) "by increasing the speed of the vehicle to flee" and that there was no evidence that Defendant increased the speed of his vehicle after law enforcement officers began to pursue him. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the disputed jury instruction was erroneous because it added a requirement to the statutory definition of the crime; but (2) it was clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found Defendant guilty of the crime of fleeing or attempting to elude an officer, and therefore, there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant.View "State v. Beamon" on Justia Law

A six-person jury found Milwaukee County met its burden to involuntarily commit Appellant for mental illness treatment under Wis. Stat. 51.20, and the circuit court entered an order that committed Appellant for a period no longer than six months. Appellant appealed, arguing that the six-person non-unanimous jury available to her under section 51.20 violated equal protection guarantees. Specifically, Appellant argued that her equal protection rights were violated because only a six-person jury with a five/six determination is available to those subject to involuntary commitment under Chapter 51 when compared to the twelve-person jury with a requirement of unanimity for individuals subject to involuntary civil commitment proceedings under Chapter 980. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the differences in the jury provisions for initial commitment hearings under Chapter 51 and Chapter 980 do not violate Appellant's constitutional right to equal protection. View "Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case filed an amended complaint seeking a declaration that certain portions of 2011 Wis. Acts 10 and 32 violated the Wisconsin Constitution and asking for injunctive relief. The circuit court entered a declaratory judgment that granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs. During the pendency of the appeal, the circuit court held Defendant Commissioners in contempt. Thereafter, State Defendants brought an emergency motion to stay the contempt order, which the court of appeals denied. State Defendants subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court to stay the declaratory judgment and any subsequent circuit court orders. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the contempt order, which rendered State Defendants' motion to stay the contempt order moot, holding that the contempt order constituted an impermissible interference with the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; and (2) declined to rule on the stay of the declaratory judgment. View "Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Walker" on Justia Law

Petitioner and Respondent were divorced according to a judgment of divorce filed on July 20, 1989. The judgment awarded Petitioner half the value of Respondent's pension accrued during the span of the marriage and stated that a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was required to be submitted to secure those rights. On September 13, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion seeking to compel Respondent to provide pension information so that the necessary QDRO could be prepared and his Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) pension could be divided in accordance with the judgment of divorce. The circuit court denied Petitioner's motion for the entry of a QDRO on the grounds that the motion was barred by Wis. Stat. 893.40, a statute of repose, which states that an action upon a judgment or decree "shall be commenced within 20 years after the judgment or decree is entered or be barred." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Petitioner's motion was not barred by the operation of section 893.40 because (1) it was not until 1998 that legislation required WRS to accept QDROs for marriages that were terminated previously; and (2) therefore, the statute of repose will bar actions on such provisions after 2018. Remanded.View "Johnson v. Masters" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the City of Wausau decided not to renew Thomas and Suporn Nowell's Class B alcohol license. The circuit court affirmed the City's decision after reviewing the municipal decision under Wis. Stat. 125.12(2)(d). The court of appeals reversed, concluding that section 125.12(2)(d) required the circuit court to employ a de novo standard of review rather than the certiorari review employed by the circuit court in this case. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that certiorari is the correct standard of review for a court to apply when, pursuant to section 125.12(2)(d), it reviews a municipal decision not to renew an alcohol license. View "Nowell v. City of Wausau" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to first-degree sexual assault with a child. Defendant was convicted to a violation of Wis. Stat. 948.02(1)(d). The court of appeals ordered the judgment of conviction to be amended in accordance with the plea agreement and ordered the circuit court to list the correct crime, a violation of Wis. Stat. 948.02(1)(e). The court then remanded for resentencing because a structural error occurred when the circuit court imposed the sentence relying on the penalty provision for a violation of section 948.02(d) instead of the penalty provision for a violation of section 948.02(e). The State appealed. At issue on appeal was whether a circuit court's imposition of a sentence using inaccurate information that Defendant was subject to a mandatory minimum five-year period of confinement is structural error or subject to the application of harmless error analysis. The Supreme Court affirmed, but on different grounds, holding (1) the error in this case was subject to a harmless error analysis and was not a structural error; and (2) the error was not harmless.View "State v. Travis" on Justia Law