Janine P. Geske

This case involved Anthony Harris, a passenger in a vehicle stopped by Milwaukee police officers who were searching for a robbery suspect but had no description linking the car or its occupants to the crime and observed no traffic violations or suspicious behavior. Harris moved to suppress marijuana found on him after the stop, arguing it was the fruit of an illegal seizure, though lower courts ruled he lacked standing to challenge the vehicle stop. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that all occupants of a stopped vehicle are seized under the Fourth Amendment and state constitution, giving them standing to object, and that the officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle in the first place. The court therefore concluded the evidence must be suppressed as the product of an unlawful seizure.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Pultz, Dale Pultz was found in remedial contempt by the circuit court for violating a permanent injunction against specific activities at Milwaukee medical clinics, resulting in sanctions including a forfeiture or up to 380 days of jail time with a purge option. The Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed whether due process required the court to inform an indigent defendant of the right to appointed counsel at public expense in this state-initiated contempt proceeding under Wis. Stat. § 785.03(1). The court held that due process mandates such advice when incarceration is possible, reversing the contempt order and remanding for a new hearing, while declining to reach the separate notice issue.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Armstrong v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance, Cheryl Armstrong, an employee at a dog kennel, was bitten by a Siberian Husky she was caring for during her shift and sued the dog's legal owners and their insurer under Wisconsin's strict liability statute for dog bites, Wis. Stat. § 174.02(1), after conceding no negligence by the owners. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' reversal of the trial court's damages award to Armstrong, concluding that she was a "keeper" of the dog under Wis. Stat. § 174.001(5) because her job duties involved exercising custody and control over the animal at the time of the injury. The court reasoned that a keeper injured by the dog may not recover from the legal owners under strict liability when there is no evidence of owner negligence, as the keeper assumes responsibility during care. The decision turned on statutory interpretation of "owner" to include keepers and applied it to bar the claim in this employment context.

torts & liability

This case involved eight Amish individuals cited for violating Wisconsin Statute § 347.245 by not displaying the required red and orange slow-moving vehicle emblem on their horse-drawn buggies, which they claimed conflicted with their religious convictions. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to the defendants under Article I, section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which protects the right to worship according to the dictates of conscience. The court reasoned that the defendants' beliefs were sincere and substantially burdened by the emblem requirement, and that the state constitution provided an independent basis for relief, even though alternatives like red lanterns and reflective tape were used. The decision focused on state constitutional grounds rather than federal law or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

religious libertycriminal law

The case concerned a challenge to 1995 Wis. Act 27, § 2442v, which amended Wis. Stat. § 48.23(3) to prohibit circuit courts from appointing counsel for any party other than the child in CHIPS proceedings involving children alleged to be in need of protection or services. The court held the provision unconstitutional under both the state separation of powers doctrine and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reasoned that the judiciary possesses inherent authority to appoint counsel that falls within its core zone of exclusive power, and that a legislative bar impermissibly intrudes on or substantially interferes with that authority. The court further concluded that due process can require appointed counsel in particular CHIPS cases to ensure parents receive a meaningful opportunity to be heard, given the proceedings' potential complexity and stakes, so a blanket prohibition could not stand.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

This case involved Michael Andrews, who was visiting an apartment when police executed a search warrant for drugs and drug paraphernalia there; officers found marijuana and related items in Andrews' duffel bag, which was in a bedroom and not on his person, leading to his conviction for possession with intent to deliver after his motion to suppress was denied. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the search of the bag was authorized by the premises warrant. The court held that, during execution of a search warrant for private premises, officers may search all items that are plausible repositories for the objects named in the warrant, except those worn by or in the immediate physical possession of a visitor whose person is not covered by the warrant. The core reasoning was that the duffel bag was not in Andrews' possession when searched and could have contained the marijuana or paraphernalia sought, consistent with Fourth Amendment standards and precedents from other jurisdictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Matthew Verdoljak suing Mosinee Paper Corporation for negligence after he was injured while riding his dirt bike into a gate on a logging road owned by the company. The circuit court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim under Wisconsin's recreational use statute, which limits property owners' liability for injuries during recreational activities, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld this, ruling that the statute applies to immunize owners like Mosinee even without fully opening their lands to all public recreational uses, as the focus is on the recreational activity rather than any affirmative opening requirement by the owner.

torts & liabilityproperty

In this case, plaintiffs sued landfill operators and their insurer for negligence, claiming that improper landfill operations contaminated their well water and caused John Stoppleworth's skin cancer. The jury found the defendants negligent but determined that the negligence did not cause the cancer. The Wisconsin Supreme Court considered whether the trial court properly barred any mention of the insurer as a defendant to the jury. The court held there is no constitutional or statutory right to identify all parties but adopted a new procedural rule requiring courts to identify all joined parties to the jury in future cases. It affirmed the verdict here, concluding the nondisclosure did not affect the plaintiffs' substantial rights.

proceduretorts & liability

The case was a negligence action brought by university student Renee Kimps against Physical Education instructor Leonard Hill and campus safety officer Allen Kursevski after she was injured when the base of a portable volleyball standard fell on her foot during a class exercise at UW-Stevens Point. The circuit court dismissed the claim against Kursevski on public officer immunity grounds but allowed the claim against Hill to go to the jury, which found both employees causally negligent; the court of appeals reversed as to Hill and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed that both defendants were immune. The court reasoned that the employees' conduct involved discretionary rather than ministerial duties, that no known present danger exception applied, and that the governmental-proprietary distinction and planning-operational distinction were not applicable to claims against individual state officers. The court therefore upheld dismissal of the claims against both men.

torts & liability

The case involved Susan Nichols requesting copies of open records requests received by Columbia County District Attorney Mark Bennett along with his responses to them from 1990 onward. Bennett refused to release three of the requests and responses, asserting they were part of closed prosecutorial files exempt from disclosure under State ex rel. Richards v. Foust. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the records must be made available under the open records law, holding that it is the nature of the documents rather than their location in prosecutorial files that controls their status. The court reasoned that the Foust exemption applies only to materials integral to criminal investigations and prosecutions, which these records were not.

free speechcriminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dirk Harris's conviction for first-degree murder and armed robbery, where police initiated contact and obtained statements and physical evidence after Harris had invoked his right to counsel through his attorney and directly with officers. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the admission of physical evidence derived from this Edwards violation was error, as the bright-line rule prohibits uncounseled police-initiated interrogation after invocation of the right to counsel. However, the court concluded the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because other evidence, including witness testimony and recovered items, independently supported the conviction, and thus affirmed the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a criminal complaint against John T. Williams with multiple counts arising from two separate incidents: an aggravated battery on one victim and charges related to an attack on another victim. At the preliminary hearing, the court commissioner bound Williams over on the aggravated battery counts but dismissed the second-degree recklessly endangering safety count due to issues with witness testimony. The district attorney then filed an information that included a new charge of first-degree reckless injury based on the same facts as the dismissed count. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that under Wis. Stat. § 970.03(10), any charge transactionally related to a count on which bind over was ordered may be included in the information, even if it stems from facts underlying a dismissed count, because bind over on one count in a set of related counts requires bind over on all. The court reversed the court of appeals and upheld the conviction for the lesser-included offense of first-degree recklessly endangering safety.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a father's lawsuit against his insurer for personal injuries sustained when his 15-year-old severely developmentally disabled daughter accidentally started a parked truck, causing it to lurch backward and pin him against a building. A jury found the father 100% causally negligent for his own injuries and the daughter not negligent. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the verdict was supported by credible evidence, that the father's negligence exceeded any on the part of the daughter as a matter of law, and that mental incapacity does not alter the reasonable-person standard of care in negligence claims. The court reversed the circuit court's order granting a new trial in the interest of justice, overruled a prior appellate holding allowing juries to consider mental limitations in determining negligence, and remanded for entry of judgment on the verdict.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Post, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal of petitions to commit two individuals, Samuel Post and Ben Oldakowski, as sexually violent persons under Chapter 980 after their prior convictions and sentences for sexual offenses. The circuit court had ruled the statute unconstitutional on grounds including double jeopardy, ex post facto laws, substantive due process, and equal protection. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Chapter 980 is constitutional because it serves the state's compelling interest in protecting the public from future sexual violence through civil commitment and treatment of those with qualifying mental disorders that predispose them to reoffend, with the commitments' nature and duration reasonably related to that purpose. The court also extended the right to a jury determination at discharge hearings and found the statute complete and workable as applied to persons previously committed under Chapter 975.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved whether Bert Davids, an enrolled member of the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe, was required to have a state fishing license when fishing at Upper Gresham Pond, which turned on whether federal legislation had diminished the tribe's reservation boundaries established by the 1856 Treaty. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held that the Act of 1871 diminished the reservation, placing the pond outside current boundaries and under exclusive state jurisdiction, so Davids was subject to state fishing laws. The court based its decision on the statutory language of the 1871 Act and its historical context, finding that Congress intended to reduce the reservation's size to settle ongoing intratribal disputes by selling most of the land, unlike typical surplus land acts, with later legislation confirming the diminished boundaries. Current tribal hunting and fishing rights are limited to the reservation reestablished in 1934.

criminal lawfederal powercivil rightsproperty

This case involved a dispute between the Brown County Sheriff's Department and its non-supervisory employees' union over the discipline of Deputy Donald Stewart, who faced dismissal for misconduct during an arrest but received a reduced 30-day suspension and reinstatement order from an arbitrator under the collective bargaining agreement. The circuit court modified the award to exempt a newly elected sheriff from reinstating Stewart, viewing the sheriff's deputization authority as constitutionally protected. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that the arbitrator's award was enforceable because a sheriff's power to dismiss or not reappoint a deputy is not constitutionally or statutorily protected and is therefore limited by the collective bargaining agreement. The court reasoned that the agreement, consistent with related statutes, establishes protections for deputies beyond at-will employment that bind incoming sheriffs.

labor & employment

The case involved a lawsuit by the family of Shannon Barillari against the City of Milwaukee for the wrongful death of Shannon, who was killed by her ex-boyfriend after police detectives allegedly assured the family they would arrest him but failed to do so. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the City, finding the police actions were discretionary and immune from liability. The court of appeals reversed, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the detectives' promises did not convert their discretionary investigative acts into ministerial duties subject to liability. The core reasoning was that police functions like deciding to arrest remain discretionary even with assurances, preserving statutory immunity under Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4).

torts & liabilitycriminal law

This case concerned a motion by Hartford insurance companies to disqualify the Walther law firm from representing Marten Transport in a lawsuit alleging negligence and breach of contract in the administration of worker's compensation claims under retrospectively rated insurance policies. Marten had retained the Walther firm years earlier and paid all its fees directly, while Hartford initially objected but ultimately assented to the firm's defense of claims, with any appearances on Hartford's behalf being pro forma under Wisconsin worker's compensation law. The circuit court denied disqualification, finding no attorney-client relationship existed between the Walther firm and Hartford. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion and that SCR 20:1.7 and 20:1.9 did not apply to require disqualification. The ruling rested on the facts that Marten selected and compensated its own counsel, Hartford was aware of the arrangement, and the firm's representation of Marten predated and was independent of the insurance relationship.

procedurebusiness & regulatorylabor & employment

The case concerned Fred O'Dell, who was convicted of violating a child abuse injunction by being present in the apartment where his stepson resided, as a repeater under state law. The injunction had been issued in writing to prohibit contact with the stepson and the residence, but during a later hearing on modification, the issuing judge made oral statements on the record that appeared to alter the terms to focus only on avoiding contact with the child. O'Dell argued that any violation resulted from a misunderstanding based on those statements and that the mistake defense should apply, but the circuit court and court of appeals rejected this, holding that only the written order controlled. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the oral statements modified the injunction and that O'Dell could rely on the court's pronouncements, and remanded for a new trial with an opportunity for the state to amend the complaint.

criminal lawfamily law

This case involved hundreds of occupants of Tri-State prefabricated homes suing PFS Corporation and its insurer for negligence and strict liability, alleging that defective wall design and materials caused excessive moisture, leading to mold, toxins, personal injuries, and property damage. After the parties agreed to a test-case trial of representative claims that produced verdicts for those plaintiffs, the circuit court granted summary judgment to the remaining plaintiffs by applying an aggregative procedure that used average damage awards from the test cases and precluded further jury trials on causation, contributory negligence, and damages. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court lacked authority to impose this non-consensual aggregative method in the absence of a class action or party agreement. The core reasoning was that the procedure was inconsistent with defendants' constitutional right to jury trials on individual claims, and the case was remanded for separate trials on the remaining issues.

proceduretorts & liability