Source: https://wicourts.gov/news/view.jsp?id=1144
Timestamp: 2020-04-02 03:16:52
Document Index: 672206105

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 49', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 945', '§ 100', '§ 100']

Madison, Wisconsin - December 17, 2019
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept five new cases, and the Court acted to deny review in a number of other cases. The case numbers, counties of origin, and the issues presented in granted cases are listed below. More detailed synopses will be released at a later date. More information about pending appellate cases 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 pending Supreme Court cases can be found here.
2016AP2082 & 2017AP634 Kathleen Papa v. DHS
Circuit Court: Waukesha County, Judge Kathryn W. Foster, reversed–remanded with directions; orders vacated
Long caption: Kathleen Papa and Professional Homecare Providers, Inc., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Petitioners, v. Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Defendant-Appellant
Is judicial review under Wis. Stat. § 227.40 applicable to the Department's policy, based on its interpretation of statute and administrative rules, that it may recoup Medicaid payments from a provider based solely on a provider's alleged imperfect compliance with the Medicaid Provider Handbook or other program requirements?
Do the 2017 Act 369 revisions to Wis. Stats. §§ 227.40(1) and (4)(a), which expanded the scope of declaratory judgment actions to guidance documents, permit the Court to rule on the validity of the Department's recoupment policy regardless of whether the challenged policy is a rule?
Does the Department's policy of recouping payments for Medicaid services based on a provider's alleged failure to strictly comply with program requirements exceed the scope of the Department's statutory recoupment authority under Wis. Stat. § 49.45(3)(f)2., thus conflicting with Wis. Stat. § 227.10(2)?
Is the Department's recoupment policy a "rule" which was not promulgated, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 227.10(1)?
2018AP1774-CR State v. Alfonso Lorenzo Brooks
Circuit Court: Milwaukee County, Judge Jeffrey A. Wagner, affirmed
Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alfonso Lorenzo Brooks, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner
Issue presented: Whether the community caretaker exception permits law enforcement to inventory and tow a vehicle after discovering that the driver does not have a valid license, when the vehicle is lawfully parked and not obstructing traffic?
2018AP947 Quick Charge Kiosk LLC v. Josh Kaul
Circuit Court: Milwaukee County, Judge John J. DiMotto, affirmed
Long caption: Quick Charge Kiosk LLC and Jeremy Hahn, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners,v. Josh Kaul, in his official capacity as Attorney General, Defendant-Respondent.
The Wisconsin Gambling Statute defines consideration, a required element of both lotteries and gambling machines, within the definition of lottery, but not within the definition of gambling machine. Should the specific definition of consideration in the statute apply to both gambling machines and lotteries?
Under Wis. Stat. § 945.01(3)(a), four elements are required to establish a gambling machine: contrivance, consideration, chance, and prize. Petitioners ran a promotion with the use of electronic charging kiosk that allowed customers to participate in the promotion without purchase or entry fee. Does the availability of free participation negate the element of consideration under Wisconsin's Gambling Machine Definition?
Wis. Stat. § 100.16 governs marketing promotions that involve "selling with pretense of prize" and creates requirements needed to legally facilitate such a promotion. Petitioners used a mechanical/electronic device to conduct a marketing promotion. Does Wis. Stat. § 100.16 apply to electronic/mechanical devices used to facilitate a marketing promotion?
2018AP731-CR State v. Kevin L. Nash
Court of Appeals: District II [District IV judges]
Circuit Court: Waukesha County, Judge Ralph M. Ramirez, affirmed
Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kevin L. Nash, Defendant-Appellant
Issue presented: When accepting a guilty plea under Alford v. North Carolina, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), a circuit court may find there is a factual basis for the plea only if there is "strong proof of guilt." May a court find strong proof of guilt based only on the information contained in the criminal complaint, or must the court hear additional evidence before it can make that finding?
2018AP875-CR State v. Ryan M. Muth
Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review and Cross-petition for Review
Circuit Court: Washington County, Judge Todd K. Martens, affirmed in part; reversed in part; and cause remanded with directions
Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ryan M. Muth, Defendant-Appellant
Is marital income lost by a deceased victim's family member "income lost," such that the family member may recover it as restitution?
In a criminal restitution proceeding where the crime victims have accepted and received a prior civil settlement for damages including "lost wages, expenses . . ." and the defendant is asserting an accord and satisfaction of the subsequent restitution claim for lost wages and expenses, must the defendant produce extrinsic evidence of the nature of the unambiguous civil settlement agreement to show that the victims are seeking a double recovery?
16AP1709 Roberts v. Robert
18AP508 Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB v. Ayres
18AP822 Hill v. Hayes–Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet dissent.
19AP48 Dane County v. N.W.
19AP1674-W Balele v. Reynolds
18AP271 Francois v. Olsen
18AP1705-CR State v. Cousin
17AP1569-CRNM State v. Dale–Justice Brian Hagedorn did not participate.
18AP1548 Powerbrace Corporation v. Grede Holdings
18AP1879-CR State v. Shaw
18AP2300-CR State v. Mravik
17AP2223-CR State v. Williams
18AP2264-W Saldivar v. Winkleski–Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet dissent.
16AP1621-CR State v. Benson
17AP1186-CR State v. Lemons
17AP1601 Mallett v. LIRC
18AP88-CR State v. Ortiz
18AP615-CR State v. Guzman
18AP1002 State v. Muniz-Munoz
18AP1067-CR State v. Hernandez
18AP1171-CR State v. Nowels
18AP1291-CR State v. T.L.G.
18AP1402-CR State v. Bryant–Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack did not participate.
18AP1597-CR State v. Reed
18AP1639-CR State v. Zolliecoffer
18AP1650-CR State v. Jones–Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack did not participate.
18AP1935-CR State v. Green
18AP2017-2019-CR State v. Sanders
19AP834 Bach v. LIRC
19AP561-W Shaw v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County
19AP642-643-CR State v. Smith
18AP99-CR State v. Reiner
18AP2211-2212-CR State v. Nunez
18AP1469-CR State v. Baer
17AP2270 American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bell-Johnson
18AP1648 McCray v. City of Beloit
18AP815 State v. Santiago
18AP837 Vilas County v. Bowler
18AP879 State v. Williams
18AP1311-CR State v. Wigman
18AP1750-CR State v. Durski
18AP645 State v. Abt
19AP544/19AP1310-W Anderegg v. Ihnen
18AP1547-CR State v. Whatley
18AP1089-CR State v. Haefner