The
following table describes pending cases the Supreme Court has accepted on
petition for review, bypass, certification and original jurisdiction.

The
cases included for the first time (that is, the most recently accepted cases)
are marked with an * next to the case number.After the Supreme Court decides a case, the date of oral argument or
date of submission on briefs is replaced with the date of the Supreme Court
decision and abbreviated mandate.That
mandate will generally be listed in the table for two months and then the case
will be removed from the table.

·the date of oral argument or submission on
briefs; or the date of the Supreme Court decision and an abbreviated mandate;

·the Court of Appeals district from which the
case came, if applicable; the county;

·the date of the Court of Appeals decision, if applicable;

·whether the Court of Appeals decision is
published or unpublished, and, if it is published, the citations to the public
domain citation and the official reports for the Court of Appeals decision.

The
statement of the issue is cursory and does not purport to be an all-inclusive,
precise statement of the issues in the case.Readers interested in a case should determine the precise nature of the
issues from the record and briefs filed with the Supreme Court.

The
following table covers cases accepted and decisions issued through August 1, 2014.Please direct any
comments regarding this table to the Clerk of Supreme Court, P.O. Box 1688, Madison,
WI53701-1688,
telephone (608)266-1880.

Case No.

Caption/Issue(s)

SC Accepted

CA

Dist/

Cty

CA

Decision

2010AP1639-CR

State v. Erick O. Magett

Where a defendant has entered a plea of not
guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, may a court summarily refuse to
hold a jury trial on the defense if it determines that the defendant will not
present sufficient evidence to create a jury question?Would such circumstances result in harmless
error upon appellate review?

03/13/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/16/2014

2014
WI 67

4

Grant

Unpub.

2010AP3016-CR

State v. Nicolas
Subdiaz-Osorio

Whether police may track the real-time
location of a cell phone user without a warrant.

Whether a criminal suspect made an
unequivocal and unambiguous request for counsel during interrogation.

Whether evidence obtained from cell phone
tracking and statements made during interrogation should be suppressed or
whether the admission of such evidence and statements constitutes harmless
error.

03/13/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/24/2014

2014
WI 87

2

Kenosha

Unpub.

2011AP1467-CR

State v. Donyil L. Anderson, Sr.

As a matter of law, can a new trial in the
interest of justice be granted on the ground the real controversy was not
fully tried based on a forfeited challenge to a jury instruction where the
erroneous instruction was harmless error?

Was it error to grant a new trial in the
interest of justice without an analysis that this is an exceptional case
warranting the extraordinary remedy of discretionary reversal?

Whether there was a valid waiver of a
suspect’s Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) rights when he asked
to be taken to his cell during the interrogation?

12/17/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/24/2014

2014
WI 88

4

Portage

Unpub.

2011AP1673-CRNM

State v. Cassius A. Foster

Whether there had been an intelligent,
knowing, and voluntary waiver of counsel [in the defendant’s Oklahoma cases].

Whether the waiver of rights form [used in
the Oklahoma cases to waive the defendant’s right to counsel] was valid in
demonstrating the defendant’s understanding of the disadvantages of
self-representation.

Whether prior convictions should have been
admissible to enhance the defendant’s sentence.

Whether a blood draw was performed without
a warrant and, if so, whether the warrantless blood draw was constitutional
under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely, 569
U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013).

If the answer to the
first question is "yes," was the error in excluding the Denny
evidence harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?

02/19/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

09/04/2014

1

Milwaukee

Unpub.

2011AP1956

James E. Kochanski v. Speedway
Superamerica, LLC

Did the trial court err in giving Wis
JI-Civil 410 (absent witness) instructions to a jury under the circumstances
of the case?

02/12/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/17/2014

2014
WI 72

1

Milwaukee

Unpub.

2011AP2424-CR

(consolidated with

2012AP918,

State v. Seaton)

State v. Nancy J. Pinno

Whether the failure to object at trial to a Sixth Amendment
public-trial violation should be analyzed on appeal as a “forfeiture” or a
“waiver” of the issue.

02/25/2013

CERT

Affirmed

07/18/2014

2014
WI 74

2

Fond du Lac

--

2011AP2548-CR

State v. Luis M. Rocha-Mayo

Whether
the state should be allowed to introduce into evidence, during an OWI
prosecution, the results of a qualitativebreath test (PBT), not approved for evidential use in Wisconsin,
because it was administered by an individual who was not in law enforcement.

Whether such a PBT result should
be accorded a prima facieeffect of intoxication.

Whether
an emergency room doctor should be permitted to give testimony as to an
ultimate fact (intoxication) which embraces a legal concept for which a
definitional instruction is required.

11/21/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/11/2014

2014
WI 57

2

Kenosha

Unpub.

2011AP2597

Associated Bank N.A. v. Jack W.
Collier, et al.

Is a creditor’s right to obtain a common
law creditor’s/receiver’s lien against a judgment debtor’s personal property
conditioned upon docketing the judgment in the Judgment and Lien Docket under
Wis. Stat. § 806.10 (1)?

Is a judgment creditor entitled to relief,
in the form of a declaration, that its judgment is effectively docketed in
the Judgment and Lien Docket when a clerk accepts the docketing fee but fails
to record the judgment in the Judgment and Lien Docket?

Whether there is
evidence in the record to show that a person engaged in “acts which harass or
intimidate another person and which serve no legitimate purpose” to support a
petition for injunctive relief under Wis. Stat. § 813.125(4)(a).See Bachowski v. Salamone, 139 Wis.
2d 397, 408, 407, N.W.2d533 (1987).

06/14/2013

REVW

Reversed,
remanded

07/16/2014

2014
WI 68

4

Dane

Unpub.

2011AP2907-CR

State v. Antonio D. Brown

Whether an officer had probable cause under
the Fourth Amendment to stop a vehicle where the vehicle’s tail lamp was
sixty-six percent functional and in “good working order” as required under
Wis. Stat. § 347.13(1).

When a passenger asks “got a warrant for
that?” before an officer opens a briefcase found in the hatchback of a car,
has the driver’s general consent to search the car been limited?

11/21/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/11/2014

2014
WI 58

2

Sheboygan

03/27/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 36

346 Wis. 2d 680

828 N.W. 2d 885

2012AP46-CR

State v. Jimothy A. Jenkins

Was
a defendant denied his constitutional rights to counsel when his attorney
failed to investigate, subpoena, and call to testify a neutral eyewitness who
may have provided exculpatory evidence?

May a postconviction court rely on a
finding of a lack of credibility to conclude that trial counsel’s failure to
call a witness to testify at trial did not constitute ineffective assistance
of counsel?

12/16/2013

REVW

Reversed
and remanded

07/11/2014

2014
WI 59

1

Milwaukee

Unpub.

2012AP55

State v. Andres Romero-Georgana

Whether
postconviction counsel provided ineffective assistance by challenging the
circuit court’s sentencing decision rather than raising a plea withdrawal
claim based on the circuit court’s failure to orally advise the defendant of
the deportation consequences of his no-contest plea, as required by Wis.
Stat. § 974.08(1)I.

12/19/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/23/2014

2014
WI 83

3

Brown

Unpub.

2012AP122

Anthony Gagliano & Co., Inc. v.
Openfirst, LLC, et al.

May a landlord
recover from its tenant’s subtenant (or more remote subtenants) all future
rent that the immediate tenant promised to pay, regardless of the terms of
the transfer from tenant to subtenant or the amount of time that the
subtenant occupied the premises?

Whether
a tenant assigned the lease to subsequent occupiers of the premises, enabling
the landlord to recover future rent from the tenant’s assignees, or whether
subsequent occupiers of the premises were subtenants of the first tenant and
the landlord cannot recover future rent from the subtenants.

Whether
the appellate court should have reversed a directed verdict ruling and
remanded the action so that a lease extension issue could be determined as a
matter of fact by a jury?

09/18/2013

REVW

Affirmed
in part, reversed in part, remanded

07/15/2014

2014
WI 65

1

Milwaukee

02/26/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 19

346 Wis. 2d 47

828 N.W.2d 268

2012AP150-CR

State v. Jessica A. Nellessen

Must a criminal defendant who wants to
compel the state to disclose the identity of an informer make a preliminary
showing that the informer could give specifically delineated testimony that
might create a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt by supporting the
asserted theory of defense?

10/15/2013

REVW

Reversed
and remanded

07/23/2014

2014
WI 84

4

Wood

04/24/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 46

347 Wis. 2d 537

830 N.W.2d 266

2012AP183

Randy L. Betz v. Diamond Jim’s Auto
Sales

Is attorney consent required for settlement
of fee-shifting claims?

Whether the language of the settlement
agreement in this case, which was entered into by the parties without
participation of either party’s counsel, was a valid, unambiguous, binding
contract that releasedthe auto seller
of any further obligation in connection with the auto buyer’s claims,
including responsibility for the auto buyer’s attorney’s fees.

Whether the settlement agreement in this
case violates public policy and is therefore unenforceable.

05/10/2013

REVW

Reversed

07/15/2014

2014
WI 66

1

Milwaukee

11/29/2012

Pub.

2012 WI App 131

344 Wis. 2d 681

825 N.W.2d 508

2012AP320

Sharon R. Waranka v. Wadena
Insurance Company, et al.

May
the court apply Wis. Stat. § 895.04 to the plaintiff’s wrongful death
action to define the class of beneficiaries, the limitation on non-economic
damages, and to determine who can bring an action for wrongful death, where
the accident causing death occurred in another state, which precludes
application of Wis. Stat. § 895.03?May Wis. Stat. § 895.04 be applied to a case without also
applying Wis. Stat. § 895.03, which creates a cause of action for
wrongful death where the death occurred in Wisconsin?

Is conflict of law analysis required in a
wrongful death action, where a death occurred in another state but where most
of the relevant parties and the relatives of the decedent are domiciled in
Wisconsin or brought into the lawsuit under Wisconsin’s direct action
statute?

11/20/2013

REVW

Affirmed

06/03/2014

2014
WI 28

2

Ozaukee

05/29/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 56

348 Wis. 2d 111

832 N.W.2d 133

2012AP336-CR

State v. Bobby L. Tate

Whether obtaining a cell phone’s location
constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

If so, what probable cause standard applies
before police can obtain location information?

Whether statutory authorization is
necessary before a court can permit a cell phone location search, and whether
such statutory authorization exists.

06/12/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/24/2014

2014
WI 89

1

Milwaukee

Unpub.

2012AP337-CR

State v. Muhammad Sarfraz

Whether the explicit
details of alleged prior consensual sexual contact between the alleged victim
and the defendant were admissible under Wis. Stat. § 972.11(2)(b), an
exception to Wisconsin’s Rape Shield Law.

If the trial court erroneously exercised its
discretion when it excluded the prior sex acts evidence, was the error
harmless?

09/17/2013

REVW

Reversed
and remanded

07/22/2014

2014
WI 78

1

Milwaukee

05/29/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 57

348 Wis. 2d 57

832 N.W. 2d 346

2012AP378-W

Lorenzo D. Kyles v. William Pollard

What is the appropriate procedure to follow
when challenging trial counsel’s alleged failure to file a notice of intent
to pursue postconviction relief?

12/17/2013

REVW

Reversed
and remanded

06/17/2014

2014
WI 38

1

Milwaukee

--

2012AP393-CR

State v. Cortez Lorenzo Toliver

Does
the general rule that a defect of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised
at any time conflict with the appellate rule that a party is not permitted to
raise an argument for the first time on appeal?

Where a court does not make a specific
probable cause finding required by Wis. Stat. § 970.032, does the court lose
subject matter jurisdiction over the criminal proceeding?

12/17/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/23/2014

2014
WI 85

2

Racine

Unpub.

2012AP520-CR

State v. Adrean L. Smith

Whether, during custodial interrogation,
police violated a suspect’s right to remain silent by continuing to question
him after he stated, “I don’t know nothing about this stuff, so I don’t want
to talk about this.”

12/17/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/24/2014

2014
WI 88

1

Milwaukee

Unpub.

2012AP523-CR

State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy

Were field sobriety tests necessary to
establish probable cause to arrest the defendant for Operating a Motor
Vehicle While Intoxicated?

Was the evidence obtained as a result of
the warrantless blood draw a violation of the defendant’s right to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 11 of the
Wisconsin Constitution?

Whether the blood draw was performed
without a warrant and, if so, whether the warrantless blood draw was
constitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v.
McNeely, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013).

02/19/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

09/09/2014

1

Milwaukee

Unpub.

2012AP580

Russell Adams v. Northland Equipment
Company, Inc.

May
the trial court compel the plaintiff in an action for the recovery of
personal injuries brought against the tortfeasor and its insurance company,
to accept the settlement to which the plaintiff objects upon the motion of a
worker’s compensation insurance carrier that has paid worker’s compensation
benefits to the plaintiff arising out of the same occurrence for which the
plaintiff has brought the common law action?

Is
it a violation of the Wisconsin Constitution, Article I, Section 5, Right to
Trial by Jury, or Article I, Section 9, Right to Remedy, to compel a
plaintiff in an action for the recovery of personal injuries brought against
the tortfeasor and its insurance company, to accept the settlement to which
the plaintiff objects upon the motion of a worker’s compensation carrier that
has paid worker’s compensation benefits to the plaintiff arising out of the
same occurrence for which the plaintiff has brought the common law action?

If
a court may compel a plaintiff to accept a settlement offer pursuant to the
authority to resolve disputes under Wisconsin Statutes § 102.29, must
the court require a hearing compliant with due process, including an
opportunity to present witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses and the other
elements of a hearing to guarantee due process?

Where
a worker’s compensation carrier is seeking to compel a plaintiff to accept a
proposed settlement pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes § 102.29, what is the
standard of the burden of proof required:by the clear and convincing evidence, by the preponderance of the
evidence and/or by another standard?

In resolving a dispute between a
plaintiff/injured employee and the worker’s compensation carrier where the
worker’s compensation carrier has brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to
accept a settlement under the authority of Wisconsin Statutes § 102.29,
such settlement being offered by the tortfeasor and/or its liability
insurance carrier, is it error to allow a tortfeasor and/or its liability
insurance carrier to participate in the presentation of evidence or argument
in support of such motion?

11/20/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/22/2014

2014
WI 79

4

Rock

Unpub.

2012AP584-AC

League of Women Voters of Wisconsin
Education Network,

Inc.v. Scott Walker, et al.

Do
the portions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 require constitutionally qualified and
registered voters to display a specified form of government-issued photo
identification at the polling place as a prerequisite to voting constitute an
impermissible additional qualification to vote in violation of Wis. Const.
Art. III, § 1?

Do
the portions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 require constitutionally qualified and
registered voters to display a specified form of government-issued photo
identification at the polling place as a prerequisite to voting exceed
legislative authority under Wis. Const. Art. III, § 2?

Did the petitioners have standing to bring
this action challenging the facial constitutionality of the Voter ID
provisions?

11/20/2013

REVW

Modified,
affirmed, remanded

07/31/2014

2014
WI 97

4

Dane

06/26/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 77

348 Wis. 2d 714

834 N.W.2d 393

2012AP597

Scott Partenfelder, et al. v. Steve
Rohde, et al.

Whether the Federal Railroad Safety Act
(“FRSA”) preempts plaintiffs’ state law negligence and safe-place claims, or
whether these claims fall within the “specific, individual hazard” exception
to FRSA preemption.

09/17/2013

REVW

Affirmed
in part, reversed in part, remanded

07/22/2014

2014
WI 80

1

Milwaukee

04/24/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 48

347 Wis. 2d 385

830 N.W.2d115

2012AP641

Julie A. Augsburger v. Homestead
Mutual Insurance Company

As a matter of law, did a tortfeasor harbor
the subject dogs pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 174.001(5) and was he an owner of
such dogs for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 174.02?

02/19/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

09/04/2014

2

Winnebago

09/25/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 106

350 Wis. 2d 486

838 N.W.2d 88

2012AP858

Vicki L. Blasing v. Zurich American Ins.
Co., et al.

Does the omnibus statute, Wis. Stat. §
632.32(3)(a), require that a liability insurer defend and indemnify a
tortfeasor where the alleged negligence caused injury to the named insured
person?

06/13/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/17/2014

2014
WI 73

4

Jefferson

02/26/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 27

346 Wis. 2d 30

827 N.W.2d 909

2012AP918

(consolidated with

2011AP2424-CR,

State v. Pinno)

State v. Travis J. Seaton

Whether
the failure to object at trial to a Sixth Amendment public-trial violation
should be analyzed on appeal as a “forfeiture” or a “waiver” of the issue.

02/25/2013

CERT

Affirmed

07/18/2014

2014
WI 74

2

Fond du Lac

--

2012AP1047

Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor
and Industry Review

Whether
de novo review of a statute’s
underlying purpose is a necessary judicial function, regardless of the level
of deference granted to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a
statute.

Whether it was appellate error in reversing
a trial court’s decision based on a sua sponte argument and factual
determinations that were not presented to the trial court.

11/20/2013

REVW

Reversed

08/01/2014

2014
WI 101

2

Washington

Unpub.

2012AP1593-CR

State v. Michael R. Tullberg

Whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw.

02/19/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

09/09/2014

3

Shawano

Unpub.

2012AP1644

Rachelle R. Jackson v. Wisconsin
County Mut. Insurance

Corp.

Did a deputy sheriff qualify as an underinsured
motorist (UIM) under an insurer’s policy, based on her “use” of a vehicle,
when she was hit by the insured’s vehicle while walking in front of it in a
pedestrian crosswalk, and when she was not at the time manipulating,
controlling, or in any other way connected to the vehicle at the time she was
hit, because she intended to direct other vehicles to allow the insured’s
vehicle to merge into traffic?

If
a deputy sheriff was “using” the insured’s vehicle, is she entitled to UIM
benefits under the insurer’s policy based on her use of the UIM vehicle that
injured her?

11/26/2013

REVW

Reversed

06/10/2014

2014
WI 36

1

Milwaukee

05/29/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 65

348 Wis. 2d 203

832 N.W.2d 163

2012AP1652

Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP, et
al.v. Scott Walker, et al.

What is the constitutional validity of Act 23’s photo identification
requirements under the suffrage provisions in Wis. Const. art. III?

Oral Arg

02/25/2014

BYPA

Reversed,
injunctions vacated

07/31/2014

2014
WI 98

4

Dane

--

2012AP1769-CR

(Consolidated with

2012AP1770-CR and
2012AP1863-CR)

State v. Martin P. O’Brien

Must
hearsay admitted at a preliminary hearing under newly enacted Wis. Stats. §
970.038 meet a threshold level of reliability before a court can use it to
find probable cause?

At
a preliminary hearing, can the State satisfy its burden of showing the higher
degree of probable cause needed to bind over a felony for trial by relying
solely on a hearsay witness who offers the criminal complaint, for which a
lesser degree of probable cause is required?

Can
a court use the recently enacted Wis. Stats § 970.038 to limit defense
cross-examination of a hearsay witness to the question of whether that
witness heard the hearsay, rather than the plausibility of the out-of-court
declarant’s account of the underlying offense?

Following
the recent enactment of Wis. Stats § 970.038, before the defendant can call
his own witness at a preliminary hearing, must the defense make an offer of
proof that the testimony will be dispositive to defeat probable cause, rather
than simply relevant to the plausibility of the charged offense?

Did
the preliminary hearing court’s application of Wis. Stats § 970.038, which
admitted hearsay and precluded the defendant from calling the out-of-court
declarant to test his ability to see, hear and remember the relevant facts
pertaining to his story, violate the defendant’s right to due process?

Does
a defendant’s constitutional right to confront his accusers apply at an
adversary-type preliminary hearing such as that granted by Wisconsin
statutes?

Is
a defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel at a preliminary
hearing denied when the state’s only evidence offered is the criminal
complaint and the defendant is not permitted to cross-examine witnesses with
personal knowledge?

Whether
§ 970.038 of the Wisconsin Statutes unconstitutionally deprives a defendant
of due process of law.

12/05/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/09/2014

2014
WI 54

2

Walworth

08/30/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 97

349 Wis. 2d 667

836 N.W.2d 840

2012AP1770-CR

(Consolidated with

2012AP1769-CR

And 2012AP1863-CR)

State v. Kathleen M. O’Brien

Must
hearsay admitted at a preliminary hearing under newly enacted Wis. Stats. §
970.038 meet a threshold level of reliability before a court can use it to
find probable cause?

At
a preliminary hearing, can the State satisfy its burden of showing the higher
degree of probable cause needed to bind over a felony for trial by relying
solely on a hearsay witness who offers the criminal complaint, for which a
lesser degree of probable cause is required?

Can
a court use the recently enacted Wis. Stats § 970.038 to limit defense
cross-examination of a hearsay witness to the question of whether that
witness heard the hearsay, rather than the plausibility of the out-of-court
declarant’s account of the underlying offense?

Following
the recent enactment of Wis. Stats § 970.038, before the defendant can call
his own witness at a preliminary hearing, must the defense make an offer of
proof that the testimony will be dispositive to defeat probable cause, rather
than simply relevant to the plausibility of the charged offense?

Did
the preliminary hearing court’s application of Wis. Stats § 970.038, which
admitted hearsay and precluded the defendant from calling the out-of-court
declarant to test his ability to see, hear and remember the relevant facts
pertaining to his story, violate the defendant’s right to due process?

Does
a defendant’s constitutional right to confront his accusers apply at an
adversary-type preliminary hearing such as that granted by Wisconsin
statutes?

Is
a defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel at a preliminary
hearing denied when the state’s only evidence offered is the criminal
complaint and the defendant is not permitted to cross-examine witnesses with
personal knowledge?

Whether § 970.038 of the Wisconsin Statutes
unconstitutionally deprives a defendant of due process of law.

12/05/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/09/2014

2014
WI 54

2

Walworth

08/30/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 97

349 Wis. 2d 667

836 N.W.2d 840

2012AP1812

County of Grant v. Daniel A. Vogt

Does an officer who approaches a vehicle
without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a violation of the
law has been committed, and then knocks on the window and motions for the
driver to roll down his window, unreasonably seize the driver?

10/15/2013

REVW

Reversed

07/18/2014

2014
WI 76

4

Grant

Unpub.

2012AP1818-CR

State v. Ramon G. Gonzalez

Whether ordering a defendant
to open his mouth and reveal his teeth to the jury violates the Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination.

02/19/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

09/10/2014

1

Milwaukee

Unpub.

2012AP1863-CR

(Consolidated with

2012AP1769-CR

and 2012AP1770-CR)

State v. Charles E. Butts

Must
hearsay admitted at a preliminary hearing under newly enacted Wis. Stats. §
970.038 meet a threshold level of reliability before a court can use it to find
probable cause?

At
a preliminary hearing, can the State satisfy its burden of showing the higher
degree of probable cause needed to bind over a felony for trial by relying
solely on a hearsay witness who offers the criminal complaint, for which a
lesser degree of probable cause is required?

Can
a court use the recently enacted Wis. Stats § 970.038 to limit defense
cross-examination of a hearsay witness to the question of whether that
witness heard the hearsay, rather than the plausibility of the out-of-court
declarant’s account of the underlying offense?

Following
the recent enactment of Wis. Stats § 970.038, before the defendant can call
his own witness at a preliminary hearing, must the defense make an offer of
proof that the testimony will be dispositive to defeat probable cause, rather
than simply relevant to the plausibility of the charged offense?

Did
the preliminary hearing court’s application of Wis. Stats § 970.038, which
admitted hearsay and precluded the defendant from calling the out-of-court
declarant to test his ability to see, hear and remember the relevant facts
pertaining to his story, violate the defendant’s right to due process?

Does
a defendant’s constitutional right to confront his accusers apply at an
adversary-type preliminary hearing such as that granted by Wisconsin
statutes?

Is
a defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel at a preliminary
hearing denied when the state’s only evidence offered is the criminal
complaint and the defendant is not permitted to cross-examine witnesses with
personal knowledge?

Whether § 970.038 of the Wisconsin Statutes
unconstitutionally deprives a defendant of due process of law.

12/05/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/09/2014

2014
WI 54

2

Walworth

08/30/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 97

349 Wis. 2d 667

836 N.W.2d 840

2012AP1869

Richard S. Wilcox v. Estate of Ralph
Hines

May
a person establish possession of property “under claim of title”, as required
under Wisconsin’s 20-year adverse possession statute, Wis. Stat. §893.25, by
use alone where the possessor expressly disclaims ownership of the property?

Is the fact that permission to occupy the
property was sought and granted by a person erroneously thought to be the true
owner irrelevant to the question of whether the possessor occupies the
property under claim of title?

09/17/2013

REVW

Reversed

07/11/2014

2014
WI 60

4

Sauk

05/29/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 68

348 Wis. 2d 124

831 N.W.2d 791

2012AP1967

Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisors
LLC, et al.

Must
a shareholder alleging breach of fiduciary duty against a corporation’s
directors plead facts that, if true, would satisfy the conditions for
director liability required by the Business Judgment Rule and the Director
Immunity Statute, Wis. Stat. § 180.0828, in order to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted?

May
being compelled to sell one’s shares in a publicly traded corporation as a
result of a duly authorized merger constitute legal harm?

Can
minority shareholders in a corporation state a claim against the majority for
breach of fiduciary duty where the majority allegedly facilitated, and
thereafter voted its shares in favor of a merger that paid the minority more
per share than the majority received?

12/16/2013

REVW

Reversed

07/23/2014

2014
WI 86

4

Wood

09/25/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 107

350 Wis. 2d 347

837 N.W.2d 624

2012AP2044-CR

State v. Myron C. Dillard

Can a defendant demonstrate manifest
injustice warranting plea withdrawal where (a) the parties later realized
that a penalty enhancer dropped as part of the bargain could not apply to the
defendant, and (b) the defendant admitted his dissatisfaction with his
sentence compelled his motion for plea withdrawal?

Does a defendant demonstrate prejudice
based on counsel’s failure to recognize that a dropped penalty enhancer could
not have applied to him?

02/19/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

09/04/2014

2

Winnebago

09/25/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 108

350 Wis. 2d 331

838 N.W.2d 112

2012AP2067

Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott Walker

Whether the following provisions of 2011
Wis. Act 10 are unconstitutional:

The provisions limiting negotiated base
wage increases to the increase in the Consumer Price Index, unless a higher
increase is approved by voter referendum.Wis. Stat. §§ 111.70(4)(mb)2., 66.0506, and 118.245.

The provisions prohibiting “fair share”
agreements that previously required all represented employees to pay a
proportionate share of the costs of collective bargaining and contract
administration.Wis. Stat. §
111.70(1)(f) and the third sentence of Wis. Stat. § 111.70(2).

The provision requiring annual
recertification elections of the representatives of all bargaining units,
requiring 51% of the votes of the bargaining unit members (regardless of the
number of members who vote), and requiring the commission to assess costs of
such elections.Wis. Stat. §
111.70(4)(d)3.

Should the “inherently dangerous” standard
for triggering a principal’s vicarious liability for an independent
contractor’s negligence apply to individuals who do not regularly have
employees or hire independent contractors?

10/21/2013

REVW

Affirmed

06/12/2014

2014
WI 37

3

Trempealeau

Unpub.

2012AP2140-CR

State v. Angelica C. Nelson

If a circuit court prohibits a defendant in
a criminal case from testifying in her own defense, does Wisconsin case law
provide that the defendant is automatically entitled to a new trial?

12/16/2013

REVW

Affirmed

07/16/2014

2014
WI 70

3

Eau Claire

Unpub.

2012AP2170

State v. Joseph J. Spaeth

Wisconsin Stat. § 980.02(1m) and (2) requires that a commitment petition
be filed “before the person is released or discharged” and alleges that a
person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense.Does § 980.02 also require that the
commitment petition be filed before the person is released or discharged from
a sentence that was imposed for the same sexually violent offense that is alleged
in the petition as the predicate offense (SeeState v. Gilbert,
2012 WI 72, ¶51, 342 Wis. 2d 82, 816 N.W.2d 215)?

11/26/2013

CERT

Reversed,
remanded

07/16/2014

2014
WI 71

2

Winnebago

--

2012AP2185-CR

State v. James R. Hunt

Whether it was error for the trial court to
prevent a witness from testifying that he did not send the defendant illegal
materials.

12/17/2013

REVW

Reversed

08/01/2014

2014
WI 102

4

Jefferson

Unpub.

2012AP2402

Hailey Marie-Joe Force, et al. v.
American Family Mutual

Insurance
Company, et al.

Can the minor children of a man killed in a
car accident recover for wrongful death under Wis. Stat. § 895.04 when there is a
surviving spouse, but that surviving spouse has been estranged from the
decedent for over ten years, thus precluding any recovery by the spouse from
which to set aside the children’s share?

If the statute does not allow the children
to recover absent a recovery by the surviving spouse, does the statute
violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by
impermissibly differentiating between minor dependent children by
conditioning their recovery on the viability of the surviving spouse’s
claim?

Is there a rational basis for providing
recovery to minor children whose deceased parent’s surviving spouse has a
viable claim and denying recovery to those whose deceased parent’s surviving
spouse does not?

10/21/2013

CERT

Reversed

07/22/2014

2014
WI 82

2

Waukesha

--

*2012AP2466

Suzanne Stoker, et al. v. Milwaukee County,
et al.

Whether a county may
modify one element of its pension benefit formula prospectively, while making
no change in the formula used for service previously rendered and credited.

Whether consent by a
county employee’s union is sufficient consent to a prospective reduction in a
retirement benefit, under Laws of 1945, Ch. 138 § 2(a).

05/23/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

10/01/2014

1

Milwaukee

12/18/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 144

352 Wis. 2d 125

841 N.W.2d 532

2012AP2490

Wisconsin Federation of Nurses and
Health Professionals v.

Milwaukee
County

Was it error to conclude that an ordinance
stating the benefit in issue was a "unilateral" contract because the
offer (here, payment of Medicare Part B premiums . . . ) cannot be accepted
without the happening of something down the road that may or may not
happen—retirement. (See Loth v. City of Milwaukee, 2008 WI 129, 315
Wis. 2d 35, 758 N.W.2d 766)

Did the ordinance providing for payment of
Medicare Part B premiums unconditionally guarantee employees that the County
would not diminish or impair the employee's right to that particular retiree
health insurance benefit before the employee retired and became otherwise
eligible to receive it?

Did the County breach a
contract by amending an ordinance to modify a retiree health insurance
benefit which amendment could only apply to the affected employees who had
not yet retired and become eligible for that benefit?

02/19/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

10/01/2014

1

Milwaukee

11/20/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 134

351 Wis. 2d 421

839 N.W.2d 869

2012AP2499

Eileen W. Legue v. City of Racine

Does governmental immunity apply when
someone is injured because an officer proceeds against a traffic signal as
authorized by Wis. Stat. § 346.03(2)(b), if the officer slowed the vehicle
and activated lights and sirens as required by § 346.03(3) but
nonetheless arguably violated the duty to operate the vehicle “with due
regard under the circumstances” as required by § 346.03(5)?

11/26/2013

CERT

Reversed
and remanded

07/25/2014

2014
WI 92

2

Racine

--

2012AP2513-CR

State v. Raphfeal Lyfold Myrick

Did the court of
appeals amend a statutory rule of evidence (Wis. Stat. § 904.10) making it
applicable in a situation that was excluded by the supreme court when the
supreme court promulgated the rule?

Is there a
difference between the definition of "pollutant" in Wilson v.
Falk and the definition of "pollutant" in this case?

Are the reasonable
expectations of farmers and septage haulers different concerning the value of
manure used as fertilizer?

Is applying septage, as an organic
fertilizer, to farmland considered to be a normal, everyday activity for
farmers and septage haulers?

Does septage, which farmers and septic
companies use to apply to farmland as fertilizer, unambiguously constitute a
"pollutant" as it is defined under a standard pollution exclusion
provision in an insurance policy?

04/17/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

09/12/2014

3

Outagamie

Unpub.

2012AP2557-CR

State v. William F. Bokenyi

Did
a prosecutor’s sentencing argument breach a plea agreement by undermining the
agreed-upon sentencing recommendation?

Was
defense counsel ineffective for failing to object to the alleged breach of
the plea agreement?

May the state inspect private workplaces
for violations of the Wisconsin Safe Place Statute (Wis. Stat.
§ 101.11(1)) or federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) standards and use the results of such inspections to enforce a safety
penalty under Wis. Stat. § 102.57?

Is the use of federal OSHA regulations to
enforce Wis. Stat. § 102.57 permissible under 29 U.S.C.
§ 653(b)(4)?

Does Wis. Stat. § 101.01(15)(a)
prohibit state action in these circumstances?

05/23/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

09/23/2014

2

Sheboygan

09/25/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 112

350 Wis. 2d 469

838 N.W.2d 131

2012AP2784

118th Street Kenosha, LLC
v. Wisconsin Department of

Transportation

When valuing a temporary limited easement
(TLE) under Wis. Stat. § 32.09(6g), can an appraiser testify about alleged
permanent severance damages for the period of time beyond the term of the
TLE?

When valuing a TLE, can a landowner
introduce evidence on damages caused by other aspects/phases of a project?

When exercising a police power, does the
State need to compensate an abutting landowner for elimination of a connection
to a highway where a landowner did not have a legal right to access that
highway at the location of the connection?

03/18/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

09/10/2014

2

Kenosha

12/18/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 147

352 Wis. 2d 183

841 N.W. 2d 568

*2013AP127-CR

State v. Raheem
Moore

Did a law enforcement officer’s decision
to turn off a recorder violate the mandate of State v. Jerrell C.J.,
2005 WI 105, 283 Wis. 2d 145, 699 N.W.2d 110 and Wis. Stat. § 938.195, thus
requiring suppression of a juvenile’s unrecorded statement and his subsequent
recorded statement?

Was
the defendant's inculpatory statement made voluntarily?

05/22/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

09/23/2014

1

Milwaukee

02/26/2014

Pub.

2014 WI App 19

352 Wis. 2d 675

___ N.W.2d ___

2013AP221

Dow Family, LLC v. PHH Mortgage
Corporation

Whether the common law doctrine of equitable assignment, the Uniform
Commercial Code or both exempt assignments of real estate mortgages from the
Statute of Frauds, with the result that a mortgage automatically accompanies
a mortgage note upon negotiation or transfer of the latter without any
written assignment of mortgage or recording of any document being necessary.

Whether the purchaser’s good faith in purchasing the property is
relevant to the right to foreclose.

12/16/2013

REVW

Affirmed,
remanded to circuit court

07/10/2014

2014
WI 56

3

Barron

09/25/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 114

350 Wis. 2d 411

838 N.W.2d 119

*2013AP225

State v. Michael Alger

Where a Chapter 980
petitioner files a petition for discharge after the effective date of
amendments to Wis. Stat. § 907.02(1) (2011-12); whether those amendments
apply to the proceedings on those petitions or do not because the
"action" was "commenced" with the filing of the petition
for commitment in 2004?

Does Wis. Stat. § 907.02(1) violate the
petitioner’s rights to Equal Protection if it is deemed to be inapplicable to
discharge petitions filed after the effective date of the statute?

05/23/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

10/02/2014

3

Outagamie

12/18/2013

Pub.

2013 WI App 148

352 Wis. 2d 145

841 N.W.2d 329

*2013AP298-CR

State v. Richard H. Harrison

Whether a judge,
lacking competence due to a timely motion for substitution under Wis. Stat. §
971.20, presiding over a jury trial and entering the judgment of conviction
constitutes “structural error” requiring automatic reversal.Or is the error harmless under a harmless
error analysis?

Whether a defendant’s objection to competency of a judge due to a
timely motion for substitution under Wis. Stat. § 971.20 was waived when he
failed to timely object to the judge’s lack of competence.

Does a Chapter 980
petition for discharge filed after the effective date of the statutory
revision adopting the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S.
579 (1993) reliability standard for expert testimony commence a new action
subject to the revised standard, or does a discharge petition continue the
original 980 proceeding, so that a patient whose original commitment was
initiated prior to February 1, 2011, will remain subject to the former
evidentiary standard in all future discharge proceedings?

If the revised standard governing the admissibility of expert
testimony does not apply to a petitioner’s present and future discharge
proceedings because his original commitment was initiated prior to
February 1, 2011, does this statutory revision violate a petitioner’s
rights to due process and equal protection of the law?Should a reviewing court apply strict
scrutiny or a rational basis standard?

05/23/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

10/02/2014

4

Dane

01/29/2014

Pub.

2014 WI App 9

352 Wis. 2d 563

842 N.W.2d 526

2013AP691 /

2013AP776

Wilson Mutual Insurance Company v.
Robert Falk

Is manure that contaminates consumable
fresh water a "pollutant" under the pollution exclusion in an
insurance policy?

Does the Farm Chemicals Limited Liability
endorsement in the insurance policy issued to the insureds provide coverage
for damages from manure that contaminates consumable fresh water?

04/17/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

09/12/2014

2

Washington

01/29/2014

Pub.

2014 WI App 10

352 Wis. 2d 461

844 N.W.2d 380

*2013AP843-CR

State v. Danny
Robert Alexander

Can an appellate
court decide a case on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel when
that issue had never been raised or argued by the parties in the circuit
court or in their briefs on appeal?

06/12/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

10/07/2014

1

Milwaukee

Unpub.

*2013AP1108-CR

State v. Jesse J. Delebreau

Once trial counsel
has been appointed for a criminal defendant, if the defendant requests a
custodial interview with law enforcement, is it a violation of that
defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel for law enforcement to take a
statement from the defendant, without the defendant’s appointed attorney
being present, if the officer provides the usual Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436 (1966) warnings before taking the statement?Is it a violation of the defendant’s
Article I, Section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution’s right to counsel?

05/22/2014

REVW

3

Brown

02/26/2014

Pub.

2014 WI App 21

352 Wis. 2d 647

843 N.W.2d 441

*2013AP1163-CR

State v. Kearney W. Hemp

Was a defendant’s conviction expunged upon
successful completion of his sentence or was the defendant required to
petition the circuit court for expungement upon successful completion of
probation?

May the circuit court modify a sentence, sua
sponte, to revoke probation that was previously granted?

06/12/2014

REVW

Oral Arg

10/07/2014

1

Milwaukee

03/26/2014

Pub.

2014 WI App 34

353 Wis. 2d 146

844 N.W.2d 421

*2013AP1392

Runzheimer
International, Ltd. v. David Friedlen, et al.

Is consideration in addition to continued
employment required to support a covenant not to compete entered into by an
existing at-will employee?

06/12/2014

CERT

Oral Arg

10/01/2014

1

Milwaukee

--

*2013AP1638-FT

Outagamie County v. Michael H.

Do thoughts of suicide or self-harm, without
an articulated plan for acting on those thoughts, constitute “threats” of
suicide or serious bodily harm necessary to establish dangerousness under
Wis. Stat. § 51.20 (1) (a) 2.a.?

Was the evidence sufficient under a second
standard specified in Wis. Stat. sec. 51.20 (1) (a) 2. c., which requires evidence of such impaired
judgment, manifested by a pattern of recent acts or omissions, that there is
a substantial probability of physical impairment or injury?