Source: https://www.wicourts.gov/news/view.jsp?id=1241
Timestamp: 2020-07-08 04:56:27
Document Index: 243370211

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 70', '§ 32', '§ 1', '§ 901', '§ 908', '§ 908', '§ 908', '§ 6', '§ 6']

Madison, Wisconsin - June 1, 2020
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept six 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.
2018AP669 Collison v. City of Milwaukee Bd. of Review
Long caption: State of Wisconsin ex rel. Ronald L. Collison, Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner v. City of Milwaukee Board of Review, Respondent-Respondent
Whether the policy used by the city of Milwaukee in valuing contaminated property, "City of Milwaukee Environmental Contamination Standards (CMECS)", conforms to statute.
Whether the assessor for the city of Milwaukee considered the impairment of the properties market value due to the presence of contamination as required by statute § 70.32(1m).
Whether the assessment in the instant action conforms to Wisconsin statutes.
2018AP1114 Christus Lutheran Church v. Wisconsin DOT
Circuit Court: Outagamie County, Judge Carrie A. Schneider, reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.
Long caption: Christus Lutheran Church of Appleton Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Defendant-Respondent.
Should this Court grant review of the Court of Appeals' decision because it misconstrued Wis. Stat. § 32.05(2)(a)?
Should this Court review the circuit court's decision on the merits and conclude that the jurisdictional offer DOT made to Christus was "based" "upon" the appraisal?
2018AP1239 Applegate Farm v. Wis DOR
Circuit Court: Green County, Judge Thomas J. Vale, affirmed in part; reversed in part and cause remanded
Long caption: Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant, v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue and Richard Chandler in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Revenue, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Respondents
Whether Wisconsin state agencies need to consider indirect environmental effects when determining whether to issue an environmental impact statement ("EIS") under Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2)?
2018AP2419-CR State v. Mercado
Circuit Court Milwaukee County, Judge Jeffrey A. Conen, reversed and cause remanded with directions
Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Angel Mercado, Defendant-Appellant.
Did the Court of Appeals contravene Wis. Stat. § 901.03(1)(a) when it directly reviewed Mercado's forfeited challenges to the admission of the victims' forensic- interview videos into evidence?
Did the circuit court properly admit the victims' forensic-interview videos into evidence at trial? This question presents four sub-issues:
Did the circuit court comply with Wis. Stat. § 908.08(2)(b) when it reviewed the relevant portions of two child victims' forensic-interview videos before playing them to the jury?
Did the Court of Appeals conflict with binding case law when it rejected the State's argument that all three victims' forensic-interview videos were admissible under the residual hearsay exception?
Was the youngest victim's forensic-interview video also admissible under Wis. Stat. § 908.08(3)(c) or as a prior inconsistent statement?
Did the circuit court comply with Wis. Stat. § 908.08(5)(a) when it allowed the youngest victim to testify before playing her forensic-interview video for the jury?
2019AP90-CR State v. Savage
Circuit Court: Milwaukee County, Judge Mark A. Sanders, reversed and cause remanded with directions
Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent v. George E. Savage, Defendant-Appellant
Did Savage prove that he was entitled to withdraw his plea without showing a reasonable probability that his defense would have succeeded at trial?
Did State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, 381 Wis. 2d 560, 912 N.W.2d 89, prevent the Court of Appeals from affirming the circuit court's determination that counsel was not ineffective based on the evidence at the Machner hearing?
2019AP2397 and 2020AP112 Zignego v. Wis. Election Comm.
Long caption: State of Wisconsin ex rel. Timothy Zignego, David W. Opitz and Frederick G. Luehrs, III, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, Marge Bostelmann, Julie Glancey, Ann Jacobs, Dean Knudsen and Mark Thomsen, Defendants-Appellants
Does Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) apply to the Wisconsin Elections Commission ("WEC")?
Was it proper to order WEC to comply with Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) and, as is required by that law, to deactivate the voter registrations of voters within 30 days of sending them a notice and receiving no response?
Was it proper to find WEC and certain of its commissioners in contempt for failing to comply with the Writ of Mandamus for 32 days after the Circuit Court granted the Writ, and for twice voting not to comply with the Writ?
18AP1371-CR State v. Songetay
19AP2281 Eagle Point v. PSC
18AP1835-CR State v. Smith
18AP2142-CR State v. Heinrich
18AP1368-CR State v. Johnson
18AP649-CR State v. Griffin
18AP2014 Wargaski v. NCI Group, Inc.
18AP1607-CR State v. Brantley
18AP2463-CR State v. Barler
19AP1098 V.A. v. M.W.P.
16AP286-CR State v. Tally
18AP1292-CR State v. Brown
18AP1423-CR State v. Yang
18AP1544-W Gladney v. Foster
18AP2136-CR State v. Mason
19AP52 Scwefel v. Przytarski
19AP963 Thompson v. Foster
19AP1559-1561 State v. E.F.
18AP139-CR State v. Campbell
19AP1726 Adoptions of Wisconsin, Inc. v. N.R.K.
20AP123-W Zignego v. Court of Appeals, Dist. IV
19AP1457-W Petrie v. Hepp
16AP1340-CR State v. Gutierrez
18AP1669 State v. Rintamaki
18AP1970-CR State v. Murry
18AP1225 Mawhinney v. Hallett
18AP1759-CR State v. Steinhorst
18AP2253 Sauk County v. R.A.S.
18AP2267-CR State v. Lomax
18AP1715 Link v. Link
18AP2035-CR State v. Anderson
18AP1758 Mehotra v. Krecak