George R. Currie

This case concerned whether a circuit court could absolutely discharge numerous juvenile inmates from a state reformatory without remanding them to the originating juvenile courts, after they challenged their commitments on the ground that they lacked counsel at their delinquency hearings in violation of In re Gault. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that prohibition was available to review the matter, that Gault's right-to-counsel rule applied retroactively to such hearings, and that a habeas court must remand the juveniles to the juvenile court's jurisdiction rather than grant outright release. The court reasoned that its constitutional superintending authority over inferior courts permitted the writ where appeal would be too late to prevent grave public harm, that Gault equated the need for counsel in juvenile proceedings to the adult right recognized in Gideon v. Wainwright (which is retroactive), and that habeas statutes and precedents authorize remand to correct jurisdictional defects while preserving the original court's authority.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned whether a bond issued by defendant Bever to the city of Clintonville was assignable to plaintiff Wipfli, which would allow Wipfli to foreclose on the mortgage given to secure the bond. The court decided that the bond was assignable. It reasoned that the bond and mortgage were executed together as part of the same transaction and therefore must be construed together, and the mortgage's language explicitly required payment to Clintonville "its successors or assigns," making the bond's benefits enforceable by an assignee.

property

The case concerned two procedural questions in a civil lawsuit: whether a defendant could obtain summary judgment by relying solely on verified pleadings without any supporting affidavit, and whether an order denying review of a prior denial of summary judgment was appealable. The court held that the trial court correctly denied the summary judgment motion because the defendant failed to comply with the statutory requirement under sec. 270.635(2) to submit affidavits setting forth evidentiary facts. It further ruled that the appeal from the second order must be dismissed, as an order refusing to modify a prior order is neither a final order under sec. 274.33(1) nor an appealable nonfinal order under sec. 274.33(3). The court explained that a summary judgment motion differs from a motion for judgment on the pleadings and that such review orders do not prevent entry of a final judgment from which an appeal could be taken.

procedure

The case concerned whether an insured's cause of action against an automobile liability insurer for bad faith failure to settle a claim within policy limits, resulting in an excess judgment, vests in the insured's bankruptcy trustee under section 70(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Act. The court held that the claim does vest in the trustee because it is assignable under Wisconsin law. The court reasoned that the action is a species of fraud that damages the insured's property rights or interests, as it pecuniarily diminishes the estate by subjecting the insured to an enforceable judgment, and thus survives under Wisconsin's survival statute, section 895.01, making it transferable. The court relied on the statute's 1907 amendment, precedents interpreting "property rights or interests," and the principle that the nature of the action is determined by state law.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the constitutionality of Wisconsin's pre-judgment garnishment statutes, which allowed a creditor to seize a portion of a debtor's wages before any court judgment on the underlying debt. The debtor, Sniadach, challenged the statutes on due process, equal protection, and separation-of-powers grounds, arguing they imposed undue hardships without adequate safeguards. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a litigant may not attack a statute on constitutional grounds that do not personally affect her and rejected the specific claims raised by Sniadach. The court reasoned that the garnishment created only a temporary lien to preserve the status quo, with notice and a hearing provided before any final deprivation of property, consistent with historical practice and U.S. Supreme Court precedent on attachments. The decision upheld the statutes as constitutional as applied.

civil rightsprocedureproperty

This case concerned whether a landlord providing heat, light, water, and power to tenants in a large apartment complex qualifies as a public utility under Wisconsin Statute section 196.01(1), thereby falling under the Public Service Commission's jurisdiction. The court held that such a landlord is not a public utility. It reasoned that the statute targets service to the general public rather than to a restricted group like tenants, following the precedent in Cawker v. Meyer, where even incidental service to a few neighbors did not make one a public utility, and similar rulings in other states confirmed that tenants do not constitute "the public" regardless of their number.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a patient's lawsuit against a hospital for negligence after she fell and sustained injuries while recovering from a drug overdose in the psychiatric ward. The plaintiffs claimed the hospital failed to notify the doctor promptly and to implement adequate safety measures like bed rails or constant monitoring. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict finding the hospital not negligent, holding that the evidence raised factual questions for the jury rather than establishing negligence as a matter of law, and that the trial court did not err in its instructions or by refusing to order a new trial. The court reasoned that credible evidence supported the jury's findings on both liability and damages, including expert testimony and the attending physician's assessment of the patient's condition.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case involved a defendant convicted of stabbing her boyfriend to death during a street altercation in Milwaukee. The defendant challenged her oral and written confessions as involuntary, claiming psychological coercion from two police-orchestrated trips to the morgue to view the victim's body shortly after the incident. The court also considered whether the trial judge erred by instructing the jury on the voluntariness of the confessions, effectively resubmitting that issue to them. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, finding the confessions were obtained under circumstances that rendered them inadmissible and that the instruction constituted prejudicial error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Kenneth Crawford, the stepson of Meryl Paulson, was a member of the same household as Paulson at the time of an accident on November 11, 1962, which turned on whether Paulson intended to return to the family home after leaving pursuant to a divorce action order. The jury found that Paulson did intend to return, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly; the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed. The court held there was sufficient credible evidence, including Paulson's own testimony that he hoped to return and had not formed an absolute intent never to do so, to support the verdict. Statements by Paulson to his attorney and stepson about his intent were admissible as non-hearsay evidence of state of mind. The trial court did not err in refusing the appellant's requested jury instructions, as they did not account for the possibility that Paulson remained hopeful of returning on his terms.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a homeowner suing the city of Montello after her basement flooded due to a temporary obstruction in the municipal sewer main. The court addressed whether the city was negligent in its inspection and maintenance of the sewer and whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to infer negligence from the flooding itself. It held that the city was not negligent because its annual cleaning and inspection of sewer mains constituted reasonable practice, with no history of root trouble or other issues in the specific main at issue. The court further concluded that res ipsa loquitur did not apply, as the obstruction could have been caused by materials like plastic bags or toys not within the city's exclusive control. The trial court's judgment for the city was affirmed.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned a union's lawsuit in state court to collect fines it had imposed on a member for returning to work during an authorized strike. The court held that state courts have jurisdiction to enforce the fines, that such enforcement does not coerce employees in the exercise of rights under section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, and that it does not conflict with Wisconsin labor policy. The core reasoning relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., which determined that a union's imposition and collection efforts regarding reasonable fines do not constitute an unfair labor practice, combined with federal preemption principles requiring deference to NLRB rulings on the scope of protected union discipline. The court further concluded that the fines were authorized by the union's constitution, which formed part of the membership contract.

labor & employmentfederal power

In Cresci v. State, defendants sought to withdraw their guilty pleas to robbery charges, arguing the pleas were involuntary due to incommunicado detention after arrest and last-minute plea bargaining on the day of trial. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motions to withdraw the pleas. The court found no causal connection between the earlier detention and the guilty pleas entered five months later after initial not-guilty pleas at arraignment and with the benefit of counsel. It further held that the plea negotiations did not render the pleas involuntary, as defendants consulted with their attorneys, understood the risks including potential sixty-year sentences, and received the recommended concurrent ten-year sentences from the prosecutor as promised, with the trial court determining the pleas were entered freely, voluntarily, and understandingly.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Brasted against his employer after he allegedly stepped on a sharp object at work, leading to medical treatment for an infection; the examiner found the injury non-compensable due to doubts about Brasted's credibility based on inconsistent statements and lack of timely reporting, but the Industrial Commission reversed and awarded benefits including medical bills. The court addressed multiple issues, including whether the Commission denied due process by deciding credibility without the examiner's personal impressions of the witnesses, whether credible evidence supported the medical awards, whether Brasted unreasonably refused treatment, and whether the Commission exceeded its powers by reserving jurisdiction. The court held that reversing the examiner on credibility grounds without access to the examiner's impressions of witness demeanor violated due process under prior precedent like Shawley v. Industrial Comm., as such impressions are key when testimony is conflicting, and it reversed the judgment with directions to remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, while construing the jurisdiction reservation narrowly. Core reasoning focused on the ultimate fact-finding responsibility resting with the Commission but requiring procedural fairness when overturning examiner credibility determinations.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involves an appeal in an enforcement proceeding under sec. 30.03(4)(a) concerning a commission order finding that a peninsula point on a lake was a floating bog. The Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed whether the circuit court's memorandum decision was appealable, whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to take additional evidence, and related remand authority. It held that the decision was appealable as a final order in a special proceeding, that the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction by receiving evidence itself rather than remanding to the commission under sec. 111.07(7), and that reversal and remand were required. The core reasoning rested on the statutory limits confining judicial review to the existing record while permitting discretionary leave for additional agency evidence.

procedure

The case concerned challenges by Eau Claire Oil Co. to the constitutionality of provisions in Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act (sec. 100.30, Stats. 1963), specifically the requirement of a six percent markup on each separately priced item in combined sales, the use of below-cost sales as prima facie evidence of intent to injure competitors, and the treatment of trading stamp values in calculating costs. The court addressed whether these rules violated due process or equal protection. It upheld the provisions as constitutional exercises of the state's police power. The core reasoning was that regulating sales below cost promotes fair competition and the general welfare, a principle established in precedents such as Nebbia v. New York and Wholesale Tobacco Dealers v. National Candy & Tobacco Co., and that the legislature could reasonably distinguish combination sales from other promotions.

business & regulatory

The case involved defendant Nelson's appeal from his robbery conviction after he and accomplice Soulier robbed a tavern operator, during which Nelson confessed, was identified by witnesses, and was found sane by court-appointed experts despite claiming blackout. Nelson raised three issues: denial of effective assistance of counsel due to various alleged failures like not objecting to hearsay or evidence of other crimes, a conflict of interest because his attorney was a candidate for district attorney, and the need to adjust his sentence to match his accomplice's lesser one. The court rejected the ineffective counsel claims, finding the evidence of guilt overwhelming and the attorney's decisions reasonable judgments that caused no prejudice, with no demonstrated conflict affecting representation. It also held that sentence disparity alone does not require adjustment. The opinion focused on analyzing specific evidentiary and strategic points in the trial record to support these conclusions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Moutry v. American Mutual Liability Insurance concerned whether an insurance policy issued by American Mutual provided liability coverage to Young for an accident involving an automobile that his employer furnished him for commuting to work. The trial court granted summary judgment to American Mutual, finding no coverage, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the vehicle was furnished for Young's regular use, falling within the policy's exclusion for non-owned automobiles not covered if provided for regular use, as opposed to temporary substitutes or occasional use, based on the undisputed facts and supporting precedents from other jurisdictions. It also upheld the consideration of the policy terms from the pleadings since they were consistent with the affidavits.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a near-collision at a Milwaukee intersection controlled by flashing red and yellow signals, where plaintiff Seitz was injured when her husband suddenly braked to avoid the Smidl vehicle, which had entered the intersection after stopping. Plaintiff sought a new trial on eight grounds, including that the jury's equal apportionment of negligence was unsupported by evidence, improper cross-examination, amendment of pleadings, exclusion of medical bills, erroneous jury instructions, inadequate damages indicating passion or prejudice, improper bailiff communication with the jury, and interests of justice. The court reviewed conflicting testimony on the drivers' speeds, distances, and lookout duties, noting that evidence supported the verdict by showing both drivers failed to maintain adequate observation after initial sightings. It addressed each alleged error in turn, applying precedents on negligence apportionment, evidentiary rulings, and jury conduct.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a plaintiff's claims against the City of Milwaukee for negligence and nuisance arising from the programming of traffic control signals at an intersection, which allegedly allowed two vehicles to enter simultaneously and collide. The court examined whether the signals violated state highway commission rules or common-law duties of care, noting that the sequence complied with regulations requiring yellow clearance intervals and that drivers facing green signals must yield to traffic already in the intersection. It rejected the negligence claim, following precedents like Weiss v. Fote that shield municipalities from liability for discretionary design choices in traffic controls, and addressed the statutory notice requirement under sec. 81.15 as potentially barring the action. The court affirmed the lower court's order sustaining the demurrer to the complaint.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned whether a magistrate loses jurisdiction over a preliminary examination in a felony case by adjourning it for more than ten days without the defendant's consent, in violation of Wisconsin statute sec. 954.05(1). The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the magistrate does lose jurisdiction under such circumstances and that a writ of prohibition is the appropriate remedy for the accused to prevent further proceedings. The court reasoned that the statute's language is mandatory, as supported by similar interpretations in other jurisdictions like Ohio, and that allowing indefinite adjournments would undermine the purpose of a prompt preliminary examination to determine probable cause and discharge the accused if warranted. Additionally, the court noted that without this remedy, the defendant would lack an adequate means to challenge the violation since no appeal lies from a bindover order.

criminal lawprocedure