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

In Syring v. Tucker, a social worker sued a client for assault and battery after she bit him during a violent incident at a county office, claiming she might have transmitted a communicable disease such as HIV and seeking a court order for her to undergo a physical examination and blood test. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment on liability but ruled that while it could order the exam under discovery rules, it lacked authority under sec. 804.12, Stats., to enforce compliance through contempt sanctions if she refused. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that although the discovery statute did not permit contempt as a sanction, the circuit court possessed equitable authority to compel the examination, that doing so was appropriate given the circumstances including the defendant's statements about having AIDS, and that the order was constitutional. The court reversed the circuit court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

procedurehealthcarecivil rightstorts & liability

This case involved a negligence lawsuit after six-year-old Rylah McNeese was struck by a pickup truck driven by Stephen Pier while crossing the street to reach a carpool arranged with Mary Booker. The jury apportioned fault among the child's mother (75%), her mother's boyfriend (10%), Booker (10%), and Pier (5%), with the mother and boyfriend uncollectible due to bankruptcy and lack of assets. Pier's insurer sought to reallocate the uncollectible shares for contribution purposes, while Booker's insurer cross-appealed the finding that Booker was negligent. The court reversed the jury verdict against Booker, holding there was no credible evidence she breached any duty because her agreement was limited to providing transportation and she did not undertake to ensure the child's safe crossing. As a result, the court did not reach the reallocation issue.

torts & liability

This case involved a condemnation proceeding in which the Village of Shorewood sought to acquire a parcel of land owned by Steinberg and partners for park purposes, making a jurisdictional offer of $345,000 after negotiations failed. A condemnation commission awarded $655,000, and the owners then petitioned the circuit court for litigation expenses under Wis. Stat. sec. 32.28(3)(d), including $108,867 in attorney's fees based on a one-third contingent fee agreement above the jurisdictional offer. The circuit court awarded the expenses, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The court held that the circuit court had competency to award the expenses despite arguments to the contrary, that the contingent fee was reasonable and enforceable under ethics rules because it served the client's interests and was not clearly excessive, and that sec. 32.28 does not require prior payment of the fees by the condemnee. The matter was remanded for additional fees on appeal.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Gary L. Plymesser, who was charged with second-degree sexual assault of a child for allegedly fondling a 13-year-old girl and having her touch his penis. The trial court admitted limited evidence of the defendant's 1977 conviction for a prior sexual assault of a 7-year-old, based on similarities such as the defendant being under the influence of alcohol and assaulting the child of friends, while excluding other older or more prejudicial evidence. The defendant argued on appeal that admitting this other-acts evidence was an erroneous exercise of discretion under Wisconsin evidence rules. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the greater latitude rule for admitting other-acts evidence in sex crime cases permitted its use to show common scheme or plan and intent, that the evidence satisfied the requirements of secs. 904.04(2) and 904.03, and that the circuit court had properly balanced probative value against prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved La Crosse County's petition to terminate Cynthia E.'s parental rights to her three children after they had been placed in foster care under CHIPS dispositional orders and extensions. The circuit court terminated her rights on the ground of continuing need of protection or services under sec. 48.415(2), Stats., after a jury trial, but the court of appeals reversed on the basis that the written orders failed to provide the specific notice required by sec. 48.356(2). The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that the warnings attached to the orders, which listed multiple statutory grounds for termination including the one ultimately applied, satisfied the statutory notice requirements because they informed the parent of grounds that may be applicable. The court remanded for consideration of other issues raised by Cynthia E. that the court of appeals had not addressed.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Guy, police executing a search warrant for cocaine and related items at a Milwaukee residence handcuffed and frisked the defendant, who was present in the home, and seized a baggie of cocaine from her pants pocket after an officer felt a soft bulge during the pat-down. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that both the frisk and the seizure were constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that officers may conduct protective frisks of occupants during drug warrant executions due to the inherent risks involved, supported by police department policy and officers' extensive experience with weapons in such settings, and that the officer's tactile perception and experience provided probable cause to reach into the pocket and seize the contraband.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case concerned whether a businessowners insurance policy issued by American Family Mutual Insurance Company to a partnership (D&R Rentals) covered a partner's personal liability for injuring his granddaughter with a lawn tractor. The circuit court granted summary judgment finding coverage, but the court of appeals reversed; the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated coverage. The court held that the policy's 'Persons Insured' provision for partnerships extended coverage to partners for their liability as such, and that the accident occurred in the ordinary course of the partnership's business. It also concluded that the policy's designation of the insured as both individuals and a partnership provided coverage regardless of any partnership connection.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case concerned whether Wisconsin could impose state income taxes on wages earned by John Anderson, an enrolled member of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, for educational work performed on the tribe's reservation, even though Anderson resided off the reservation in Hayward, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission and lower courts upheld the tax assessment, and the state supreme court affirmed. The court reasoned that Wisconsin's general authority to tax all residents domiciled in the state extends to such income, that the tax is nondiscriminatory, and that it is not preempted by federal law under precedents like White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker or McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n because Anderson did not live on the reservation. The decision rejected arguments that the tax impermissibly burdened tribal sovereignty or conflicted with federal interests in tribal education.

taxesfederal power

The case concerned whether the IRS could administratively seize and sell a husband's undivided one-half interest in a jointly owned homestead property to collect his unpaid federal income taxes without the wife's consent. After the IRS sold the interest to the Elfelts at auction and the lower courts upheld the transaction and ordered partition and rent payments, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed. It held that I.R.C. sec. 6331 does not authorize such a sale of the husband's interest in the absence of the wife's consent or court action, interpreting the statute to conclude that the IRS lacked authority to convey the interest via quitclaim deed. As a result, the court directed entry of judgment declaring the wife the sole owner in fee simple absolute.

taxespropertyprocedure

In Hudson v. Janesville Conservation Club, the plaintiff was injured by a captive buck deer while assisting his uncle in feeding the animal at a county park pen and sued Rock County for damages after the county denied his claim. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the county, finding immunity under Wis. Stat. § 895.52(2)(b), but the court of appeals reversed; the Wisconsin Supreme Court then reversed the court of appeals and upheld the immunity. The court held that the statute immunizes property owners from liability for injuries resulting from wild animal attacks without requiring the injured person to be engaged in recreational activity and that a captive buck deer qualifies as a wild animal. The core reasoning rested on the statute's plain language providing broad immunity for such attacks, without exceptions for captivity or the victim's purpose on the property.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved the Town of Delavan petitioning for a writ of prohibition to compel a circuit judge to process a request for substitution of judge under sec. 801.58(7) in a Chapter 227 judicial review of a Department of Development decision denying a proposed village incorporation. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that sec. 801.58(7) applies to Chapter 227 judicial reviews. The core reasoning rested on statutory interpretation, concluding that Chapter 227 requires compliance with non-conflicting procedures from other statutes, that no conflict exists with the substitution provision, and that civil procedure rules apply to special proceedings such as these reviews unless a different procedure is prescribed.

procedure

The case involved Curtis Vorwald, a school district custodian terminated after a work-related injury limited his ability to perform certain tasks. Vorwald sued under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, alleging that the school board violated his procedural due process rights by ending his employment without adequate notice or hearing. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and upheld dismissal of the claim, holding that Vorwald was an at-will employee with no protected property interest in continued employment under state law. Because the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections apply only to recognized liberty or property interests, and at-will employment creates no such entitlement, no constitutional violation occurred. The court noted that arguments about the exclusivity of the Worker's Compensation Act were secondary to the absence of any property right.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned whether Wisconsin statute sec. 631.36 barred a mortgage insurer, Verex Assurance, from rescinding coverage on policies issued to the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA) based on alleged misrepresentations in the loan application by the borrower Maria Carrasco. After WHEDA purchased the insured loan and the borrower defaulted, Verex attempted to rescind the primary policy and deny the claim under the pool policy, asserting common-law rescission rights. The circuit court and court of appeals held that the statute prohibited such rescission, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the statute applies to all insurance contracts, expressly preserves only policyholder common-law rights, carves out rescission only for life and disability insurance, and lists material misrepresentation as a permissible ground for midterm cancellation, indicating legislative intent to regulate rescissions as well.

business & regulatory

This case involved the termination of parental rights of I.P. and R.A.C.P. regarding their child D.S.P., an enrolled member of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, on grounds of abandonment under Wisconsin statutes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, upholding the termination order after a jury trial. The court held that applying dual burdens of proof—beyond a reasonable doubt under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and clear and convincing evidence under state law—was proper in such proceedings. It also ruled that the two Indian social workers qualified as expert witnesses under the ICWA and that their testimony supported the finding that continued parental custody would likely cause serious emotional or physical damage to the child. The court further determined that certain state evidentiary requirements for CHIPS cases did not apply to termination proceedings.

family lawcivil rights