William A. Bablitch

The case involved Michael and Brenda Yauger, who sued Skiing Enterprises, Inc. (Hidden Valley) for the wrongful death of their eleven-year-old daughter Tara after she collided with an unpadded concrete chair lift tower while skiing. Hidden Valley moved for summary judgment based on an exculpatory clause in the season ski pass application signed by Michael Yauger, which stated that the family agreed to hold Hidden Valley harmless for any injury from inherent risks in skiing. The circuit court granted summary judgment, and the court of appeals affirmed, finding the clause enforceable. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, holding that the waiver was void as against public policy because it did not clearly, unambiguously, and unmistakably inform the signer that he was releasing Hidden Valley from liability for its own negligence, and the form as a whole did not sufficiently alert the signer to the waiver's nature and significance.

torts & liability

The case involved whether a police officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop of Johnny Waldner after observing his unusual driving and actions at 12:30 a.m., which led to his arrest for operating while intoxicated. The circuit court denied the motion to suppress, but the court of appeals reversed, finding insufficient facts for reasonable suspicion. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that the totality of the circumstances—including slow driving, abrupt acceleration, stopping without a sign, and pouring liquid from a cup—provided specific, articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, justifying the stop under Terry v. Ohio and Wis. Stat. § 968.24.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether personnel records of a public school employee and his personal telephone records, both subpoenaed by a district attorney's office during a criminal investigation into alleged sexual contact with a minor that was later dismissed, were exempt from Wisconsin's open records law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the open records law provides no blanket exemption for public employee personnel records or the telephone records held by the district attorney, so the records are subject to public disclosure unless an overriding public interest requires confidentiality. The court further held that the district attorney's decision to release materials gathered in a criminal investigation is subject to de novo judicial review by the circuit court. The reasoning relied on prior precedent requiring a case-by-case balancing test rather than categorical exemptions, and on special public policy considerations arising when a prosecutor seeks to release investigative materials.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Anthony Hicks, who was convicted of burglary, robbery, and two counts of second-degree sexual assault based on the victim's identification and microscopic hair comparisons linking him to the crime scene. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' reversal of the conviction but on different grounds, holding that Hicks should receive a new trial in the interest of justice under Wis. Stat. § 751.06 because the real controversy of identification was not fully tried. The court reasoned that post-trial DNA evidence excluding Hicks as the source of one pubic hair was relevant to identification, was not presented to the jury, and was instead countered by the State's repeated use of the hair evidence as affirmative proof of guilt, making it impossible to conclude the hair evidence played no role in the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether police officers executing a search warrant for evidence of felonious drug delivery must knock and announce their presence before entering the premises, or whether a blanket exception to that rule is permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Richards was convicted after officers entered his motel room without knocking or announcing and seized drugs; he argued the evidence should be suppressed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that officers are not required to knock and announce in such cases. It reasoned that exigent circumstances are always present in drug delivery searches due to the high risk of violence against officers and the potential for evidence destruction, outweighing the occupants' minimal privacy interests. The court reaffirmed its prior precedent in State v. Stevens as consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Arkansas.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned whether a circuit court could enter judgment on a forfeited bail order without a motion from the district attorney when the defendant appeared within 30 days under Wis. Stat. § 969.13(4). Chad Achterberg missed a court date on a concealed weapon misdemeanor charge, leading to forfeiture of his $500 bail; he later appeared and sought reinstatement, citing custody in another county, but the district attorney took no position and the court denied the request due to a prior missed appearance. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that circuit courts retain discretion to enforce bail forfeitures when justice requires, even without a district attorney motion, and that the lower court properly exercised that discretion.

criminal lawprocedure