Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was a minority shareholder in Defendant, a company that served the fantasy football league market. Plaintiff sought specific performance of the stock repurchase agreement that he and the majority shareholder had signed. At issue was whether Defendant should pay only the appraised value for Plaintiff's shares or whether Defendant should pay the stipulated share price, which was approximately six times more, where Defendant delayed terminating Plaintiff's employment until the stipulated price expired. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that this case required balancing of the equities that were due to a specific performance claim and consideration of the potential application of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded for the circuit court's determination of "where the bulk of the equities lie, including an evaluation of what the parties intended when they agreed to the stock repurchase agreement, and whether it should grant specific performance" as Plaintiff requested.View "Beidel v. Sideline Software, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree reckless homicide by use of a dangerous weapon. During trial, in support of his self-defense theory, Defendant filed a motion to admit evidence regarding both the victim’s reputation for violence and the victim’s specific violent acts. The circuit court denied the motion in part because Defendant did not know of the victim’s reputation at the time of the offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s motion to admit character evidence because, in a homicide case where a claim of self-defense is raised, character evidence may be admissible so long as Defendant had knowledge of the prior acts at the time of the offense; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to admit testimony that the victim had a reputation for violence because Defendant failed to establish a proper foundation for the trial court to determine that evidence of the victim’s reputation for violence was admissible. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and refused a chemical test to ascertain his blood alcohol concentration. Defendant filed a request for a refusal hearing but did not file his request within the required ten-day time limit. Defendant then sought to extend that time limit. The circuit court denied the motion to extend the ten-day time limit and dismissed Defendant's request for a refusal hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court was without competency to hear Defendant's request to extend the ten-day time limit, as the time limit is a mandatory requirement that may not be extended due to excusable neglect.View "Village of Elm Grove v. Brefka" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged and convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit theft by fraud of property in excess of $10,000. The charges stemmed from Defendant's conspiracy, while in prison, that defrauded AT&T out of approximately $28,000 of phone services by furnishing the company with fraudulent information. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant made "false representations" to AT&T under the theft-by-fraud statute by submitting fictitious names and stolen personal identifying information; and (2) "property" under the theft-by-fraud statute is all forms of tangible property, including electricity, and therefore, because Defendant stole electricity from AT&T , the conspiracy perpetrated against AT&T deprived the company of its property.View "State v. Steffes" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with possession of child pornography. Defendant moved to suppress the seized evidence, claiming that law enforcement violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his residence and viewing suspicious files on his computer after the woman he was dating invited the officer to enter the residence. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the woman had the authority to extend the invitation to the officer to cross the threshold and validly consented to the officer's entry and search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the woman had actual authority to consent to the officer's entry into the home and the living room and to consent to the officer's search of the laptop.View "State v. Sobczak" on Justia Law

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