William H. Dieterich

The case involved a challenge to a conviction under a Milwaukee municipal ordinance for driving while intoxicated, treated as a civil action. The court affirmed the jury verdict against the defendant. The core reasoning was that officers' testimony about the defendant's swaying, slurred speech, and odor of alcohol at the scene constituted sufficient corroborating physical evidence to support the urinalysis result showing a blood alcohol level of 0.20 percent, meeting the statutory requirement, and that cross-examination about the defendant's speech was not improper given his explanations for other symptoms.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved attorney Coggs, who was held in contempt and fined $25 by a county court for arriving late to a paternity proceeding. Coggs appealed the contempt citation to the circuit court, which dismissed the appeal on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that no statute authorized appeals from county court contempt orders to the circuit court and that such appeals must instead go directly to the supreme court. The court reasoned that contempt is not classified as a misdemeanor or crime under the statutes governing appeals from county court, even when labeled criminal contempt, because separate provisions allow for additional criminal prosecution. The absence of statutory authorization for circuit court review was fatal to the appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Justin Paaske, a mason employed by a construction company working on the premises of Perfex Corporation, who was injured when he fell from a scaffold after bumping into a protruding steel beam. Paaske sued Perfex alleging a violation of Wisconsin's safe-place statute, which requires employers and owners to furnish and maintain a safe place of employment. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant finding no violation of the statute, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that the duty under the safe-place statute is not absolute but relative, requiring premises to be kept as safe as the nature of the premises reasonably permits, without making the owner an insurer, and that the evidence did not establish any violation or that the beams created a danger due to unsoundness of the structure.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

The case involved a plaintiff who settled with the original tortfeasor and his insurer via a general release executed five months after alleged medical malpractice by a hospital, nurse, and doctor had aggravated his injuries. The plaintiff later attempted to sue the medical providers for malpractice damages, both directly and via an assignment of any subrogated claim from the insurer, after adding the original tortfeasor as a defendant. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrers to the amended complaint on grounds including failure to state a claim, defects in parties, and lack of jurisdiction, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the order. The court held that a general release given after the malpractice is presumed to cover any resulting aggravation damages unless expressly reserved, barring the plaintiff's direct claim, and that allowing the plaintiff to recover additional damages through assignment of the insurer's subrogated interest would be inconsistent with the settlement amount that fixed the value of the entire cause of action.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over an automobile insurance policy issued to John Stockinger for a car purchased in 1961. Stockinger's son Timothy, who was under 25, crashed the vehicle, but the insurer denied coverage after discovering that application forms signed by Stockinger had falsely answered "no" to questions about whether any male operator under 25 lived in the household or would drive the car. The trial court ruled for the insurer, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Stockinger was bound by the misstatements on the forms he signed even though the salesman had filled them out in advance. The court found the misstatements material because the insurer's agent had a longstanding policy of rejecting such applications and would not have approved the policy if the questions had been answered accurately, and the risk that materialized was precisely the one the insurer sought to avoid.

business & regulatory

This case involved a claim under Wisconsin Statute sec. 942.04 that a mobile home park denied a person full and equal enjoyment of a public place of accommodation based on race, color, creed, national origin, or ancestry. The trial court overruled the defendant's demurrer, finding insufficient information in the record about trailer parks to decide whether they qualify as public accommodations like inns or restaurants. On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the complaint must be liberally construed and that it sufficiently stated a cause of action under the statute's terms. The court reasoned that the limited record on demurrer prevented summary resolution of the statutory interpretation issue and that prior cases did not control the outcome here.

civil rightsprocedure