Source: https://www.wicourts.gov/news/view.jsp?id=1023
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 05:58:22+00:00

Document:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept 10 new cases, and the Court acted to deny review in a number of other cases. The case numbers, issues, and counties of origin of each granted case are listed below, along with a list of cases denied review. A more detailed synopsis of each case will be released before the oral argument is heard in coming months. More information about cases before the Wisconsin Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals can be found on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Access website. Published Court of Appeals opinions can be found here. And the status of cases pending in the Supreme Court can be found here.
Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Corey R. Fugere, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
Issue presented: For an NGI plea to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, is a circuit court required to accurately advise the defendant of the maximum term of commitment?
Is a town from which property is being annexed barred and precluded, under Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(11)(c), from asserting that the annexation petition is not, in fact, a petition for direct annexation by unanimous approval when the annexation petition lacks all of the landowners' signatures required, by statute, for the petition to constitute a petition for direct annexation by unanimous approval?
Was the annexed property "contiguous" to the City of Whitehall when the annexation resulted in a balloon on a string configuration and irregular boundaries and exclusions?
Was the City of Whitehall a "controlling influence" in the annexation boundaries when it acted, in concert with a business owner who was not an annexation petitioner, to establish boundaries in order to facilitate a sand mining operation, including by dictating what the boundaries would be so the City could provide electrical service; requiring revisions to boundaries so that the annexation would not create an "island"; and attempting to negotiate a Development Agreement, prior to approval of the annexation, that included obligations on the part of the City regarding zoning and annexation?
Can a town challenge a direct annexation by unanimous consent under the last two elements of the judicially created Rule of Reason?
Does an individual have a fundamental liberty interest in participating in a treatment court funded by the state and county when he or she has been charged with an offense involving violent conduct, as defined in Wis. Stat. § 165.95(1)(a) (2015-16)?
Does Wis. Stat. § 165.95, the statute defining the Wisconsin Department of Justice's grant funding program, have to define procedures for treatment courts to follow for the statute to survive a procedural due process challenge?
2016AP2334 Leicht Transfer & Storage Company v. Pallet Central Enterprises, Inc.
Did crime policies issued against forgery cover losses ensuing from forged delivery tickets that the parties utilized to direct payment for pallets?
In the context of the distribution of an estate, do the legatees have standing to sue the administering lawyer (regardless of privity) when their constitutional rights are violated by the assets not being distributed according to the will and the probate judgment?
Should this Court adopt the Restatement of Torts (third) § 51 test for standing to sue a lawyer in cases of errantly probated estates?
2016AP2503/2017AP13 Enbridge Energy Company, Inc. v. Dane Co.
Wisconsin law expressly preempts counties from imposing certain insurance requirements on pipeline operators as conditions in a conditional use permit [(CUP)]. Can a county, while conceding that state law prevents it from enforcing a particular insurance requirement, nonetheless include that requirement as a condition in a CUP granted to a pipeline operator?
Wisconsin law permits property owners, under certain circumstances, to enforce county "zoning ordinances." Under this law, (1) can a property owner bring a citizen suit to enforce a particular condition in a CUP issued by a county, and (2) if so, can a property owner bring a citizen suit to enforce that condition when the county concedes that the condition is unenforceable?
If the holder of an approved CUP successfully challenges a particular condition in that permit—but not the permit in its entirety—as unlawful, is striking the unlawful condition a proper remedy? Does this Court's remedy jurisprudence under Adams v. [State] Livestock Facilit[ies] Siting Review Board[, 2012 WI 85, 342 Wis. 2d 444, 820 N.W.2d 404] apply to land-use permitting more generally?
Did the circuit court have inherent authority to reduce the length of Schwind's probation?
If circuit courts have inherent authority to reduce the length of probation, what standard applies to their exercise of that authority?
Issue presented: Whether a customer sued on a consumer credit transaction without first receiving a notice of right to cure default may sue the merchant for damages under chapter 427 of the Wisconsin Consumer Act?
Whether preventing the declarant from testifying must be the defendant's primary purpose for the wrongful act that prevented the declarant from testifying in that separate proceeding (emphasis in original).
Whether a Village's oral policy, as testified to unequivocally by the Village president and all of its employees, that raw sewage accumulating in a lift station was to be pumped into a ditch when the raw sewage reached a certain level, creates a ministerial duty that upon its breach results in an exception to the governmental immunity of Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4)?
What must a plaintiff alleging that a private nuisance maintained by a municipality caused damage to the plaintiff show regarding causation in order to avoid dismissal on summary judgment, especially in the context of a backup from a municipal sewer system? Is expert testimony always required? Why or why not? If so, what must be included in the expert's testimony?
Were the evidence and the inferences from that evidence in the summary judgment record sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation on plaintiff-appellant-petitioner's claim for private nuisance?
17AP1994 Jackson County v. C.S.W.
14AP2050 Johnson Controls v. Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha—Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack and Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley dissent.
15AP1848-49 State v. Hambright—Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet did not participate.
16AP119-CR State v. White—Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet did not participate.
16AP939 Marathon Petroleum Co. v. City of Milwaukee—Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack and Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler dissent. Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet did not participate.
17AP941-CR State v. Wells, Jr.
17AP1276-CR State v. Roberts—Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack did not participate.
18AP825 Monroe County DHS v. A.D.
16AP1982 Winnebago County v. C.S.

References: v. 
 § 66
 § 165
 § 165
 v. 
 § 51
 v. 
 v. 
 § 893
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.