Louis J. Ceci

Chevron Chemical Company sued Deloitte & Touche for negligence, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation after Deloitte audited the 1985 financial statements of American Fuel and Supply Company, a company that later went bankrupt, without notifying Chevron, a major creditor, of a material error in those statements. The circuit court imposed multiple discovery sanctions on Deloitte for failing to comply with orders, and the case proceeded to trial where further issues arose regarding sequestration violations and misleading statements by Deloitte's counsel about witness availability. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that entry of judgment against Deloitte as a sanction was appropriate due to its aggravated, persistent, and contemptuous disregard of court orders and rules, and remanded the case for a hearing on damages.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Howard, the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed whether a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police for an equipment violation (illegally tinted windows) could challenge the legality of that stop under the Fourth Amendment. The defendant, a passenger in his uncle's car, was patted down during the stop, leading to the discovery of cocaine, and he sought to suppress the evidence by contesting the stop's lawfulness. The circuit court ruled he lacked standing to do so, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the stop implicated the passenger's rights. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that the passenger could not challenge the stop because Fourth Amendment rights are personal and the stop of the vehicle did not infringe on any privacy interest of the defendant himself. The court emphasized that questions of standing are subsumed under substantive Fourth Amendment analysis, requiring the defendant to show infringement of his own protected interests.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case arose from a 1985 fire at Beacon Bowl that was attributed to electrical arcing and power surges from Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) lines contacting trees, combined with improper grounding installed by Pinky Electric. After a jury found WEPCO 85 percent negligent and awarded damages, the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed five certified questions on appeal. The court held that Ransome does not bar case-by-case public policy limits on recovery, that a National Electrical Safety Code violation can support liability without a separate negligence finding, that subrogated insurers are not entitled to treble damages under the relevant statute, that preverdict interest is a legislative matter, and that Ehlinger applies only to medical malpractice cases. It affirmed the judgment except for reversing the treble damages award. The core reasoning rested on the sufficiency of evidence for the jury's findings on defective electricity and causation, along with statutory interpretation and precedent limits.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned whether the Wisconsin Personnel Commission could order the Department of Transportation to pay costs and attorney's fees arising from a discovery motion filed by an employee who alleged discrimination under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. The Commission, circuit court, and court of appeals all concluded that the Commission possessed such authority, relying on discovery rules in chapter 804 and related administrative provisions. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, holding that costs may not be taxed against the state absent express statutory authorization and finding no such authorization in the WFEA, chapter 804, or the Commission's rules. The court emphasized that prior precedent allowing attorney fees to prevailing complainants did not extend to discovery sanctions against state agencies and that the issue was one of first impression warranting no deference to the agency.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In Schulte v. Frazin, the plaintiffs settled their medical malpractice claim against the defendant doctor and insurers for $2.46 million without including their subrogated medical insurer Compcare, which had paid roughly $90,000 for the plaintiff's treatment, and then moved to extinguish Compcare's subrogation rights after a Rimes hearing determined the settlement did not make the plaintiffs whole. The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed Compcare's cross-claim and counterclaim, but the court of appeals reversed, relying on prior cases that allowed the insurer to pursue recovery from the tortfeasor. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, holding that when an insured settles directly with the tortfeasor without resolving the subrogated insurer's interest, the subrogated insurer has an opportunity to participate in a made-whole hearing, and the court finds the plaintiff was not made whole, the insurer has no right of subrogation.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involves a defendant convicted in Wisconsin state court of possessing cocaine and marijuana with intent to deliver, based on evidence seized under a search warrant issued by a state judge. After a federal magistrate later ruled in a separate federal prosecution that the warrant was invalid due to intentional or reckless false statements in the supporting testimony, the defendant moved in state court to vacate his convictions and suppress the evidence, arguing the federal decision was binding. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the federal magistrate's Fourth Amendment ruling does not bind the state trial court in the state criminal case. The court reasoned that state courts independently determine such suppression issues under Franks v. Delaware and remanded for a new evidentiary hearing while affirming the convictions in the interim.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power