This case involved an original action brought by Green for Wisconsin and Mark Green against the State Elections Board and its executive director, challenging rules governing the transfer of funds from a federal candidate's campaign committee to a state campaign committee. The Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs, based on the parties' unopposed stipulation to settle. The dismissal followed legislative changes that eliminated the Elections Board and created a new Government Accountability Board with authority to review prior rules and orders. The court had previously issued orders addressing procedural posture, factual disputes, and whether to proceed given the new board's potential role under 2007 Wis. Act 1.
This case involved an original action petition filed in the Wisconsin Supreme Court by Green for Wisconsin and Mark Green against the State Elections Board, challenging rules on the transfer of funds from a federal candidate's campaign committee to a state campaign committee following changes in federal law. After legislative action replaced the Elections Board with a new Government Accountability Board, the parties reached a settlement and jointly moved to dismiss the action. The court granted the motion, dismissing the case with prejudice and without costs based on the parties' stipulation. Concurring opinions discussed the court's prior handling of the petition for original jurisdiction, the impact of the board transition, and references to historical election disputes, but the order itself rested solely on the agreed dismissal.
The case Heikkinen v. United Services Auto. Ass'n reached the Supreme Court of Wisconsin after a petition for review was filed. The court granted the petition, permitting full consideration of the underlying dispute involving the auto association. Crooks, J., did not participate in the decision to grant review. The excerpt provides no details on the parties' claims, the lower courts' rulings, or any substantive legal issues presented.
In State v. Trujillo, the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed whether a defendant sentenced for burglary under the truth-in-sentencing regime of 1997 Wis. Act 283 (TIS-I) could obtain sentence modification based on the lower maximum penalties later enacted in 2001 Wis. Act 109 (TIS-II). The circuit court denied Trujillo's motion, the court of appeals affirmed, and the supreme court likewise affirmed, holding that the statutory reduction in maximum confinement time does not qualify as a "new factor" under existing jurisprudence. The court reasoned that the legislature had not required retroactive application of the new penalties and instead provided a separate remedy through Wis. Stat. § 973.195, and that the change was not highly relevant to the original sentencing decision. The decision reaffirmed prior cases such as State v. Hegwood and State v. Crochiere, which limit sentence modification to situations meeting the established new-factor test.
The case involved Terrell Coleman, a convicted felon, who was charged with possessing a firearm after grabbing a rifle to defend himself when he heard what sounded like a break-in at a residence where he was waiting for his niece and nephew, only to find it was police executing a no-knock search warrant. The circuit court denied Coleman's request for jury instructions on a defense of privilege and convicted him under Wis. Stat. § 941.29(2). The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a narrow defense of privilege exists to a felon-in-possession charge when the defendant reasonably believes there is an unlawful imminent threat, has no reasonable alternative, possesses the firearm only as long as necessary, and intends to use it only for self-defense or defense of others. The court further held that the circuit court erred by refusing to give the privilege instruction and that the error was not harmless, affirming the court of appeals' reversal of the conviction.
This case concerned whether the Wisconsin Court of Appeals must grant interlocutory appeals from circuit court orders denying qualified immunity to state officials in federal civil rights suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the court of appeals must grant every timely petition for such an appeal whenever the denial turns on a question of law, such as whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. The court reasoned that these orders always satisfy the statutory criteria for discretionary interlocutory review under Wis. Stat. § 808.03(2)(a) and (b) because qualified immunity protects officials from the burdens of litigation and the denial is effectively unreviewable after final judgment. The underlying dispute involved a university employee's challenge to disciplinary action for alleged sexual harassment and the officials' claim that they were entitled to qualified immunity.