Leo B. Hanley

The case involved a defendant convicted of two counts of burglary who appealed, claiming his waiver of a jury trial was invalid because it was entered by defense counsel without the defendant's explicit objection or direct inquiry by the court, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. After an initial remand for an evidentiary hearing on the waiver issue, the court credited counsel's testimony that he had discussed the nature and function of a jury trial with the defendant and concluded the waiver was valid. On the sufficiency challenge, the court held that evidence showing the defendant accompanied the principals to the crime scenes, remained present during the burglaries, and engaged in conduct such as acting as a lookout or prowling areas where items were taken was adequate to establish his liability as an aider and abettor. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned challenges to the extension of a defendant's confinement under Wisconsin's Sex Crimes Act following his sex offense convictions. The defendant argued that statements made to therapists during treatment were privileged under the physician-patient statute, that his prior criminal record should not have been admitted at the recommitment hearing, and that the trial court gave erroneous jury instructions on the required showing of dangerousness. The court held that the statutory exception for proceedings to hospitalize a patient for mental illness applied to Sex Crimes Act recommitment hearings, so the therapists' testimony was admissible; that evidence of the defendant's criminal history was relevant to show his pattern of behavior and could be admitted at the court's discretion; and that the instructions correctly reflected that the danger to the public need not be limited to physical harm. The court therefore affirmed the order extending confinement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of first-degree murder who challenged the admissibility of his statements to a corrections employee and police, claiming they violated Miranda rights, and sought to introduce psychiatric testimony during the guilt phase of his bifurcated trial to show he could not form the specific intent required. The court addressed whether the initial statement was custodial interrogation requiring warnings and whether later statements were tainted, as well as the constitutionality of excluding psychiatric evidence relevant to intent. It held that competent psychiatric testimony bearing on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime must be admitted in the guilt phase, as its exclusion was not harmless error given the offer of proof that the defendant could not form intent to kill. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial on guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved whether the Wisconsin Department of Revenue could impose a use tax on natural gas consumed by Midwestern Gas Transmission Co. at its compressor stations in the state to propel gas through interstate pipelines. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision that the tax was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. The court reasoned that the consumption of the gas was an integral part of interstate commerce lacking a substantial nexus with Wisconsin, applying the four-part test from Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, and following precedents like Helson v. Kentucky that prohibit taxing fuel used directly in interstate transportation.

taxesfederal power

The case concerned whether a defendant could withdraw his guilty plea after conviction on the basis that he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court held that a voluntary guilty plea waives such constitutional defenses but that withdrawal is permitted as a matter of right if a constitutional violation caused the plea and the defendant was unaware of the challenge at the time. Applying the Barker v. Wingo balancing test to the length of delay, reasons for it, the defendant's assertion of the right, and any prejudice, the court found no speedy-trial violation had occurred. Because no constitutional violation was established, the court did not need to examine the remaining elements for plea withdrawal and affirmed the trial court's refusal to allow withdrawal of the plea.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a road leading to a landlocked parcel had become a public highway through the Town of Richwood's maintenance under Wis. Stat. sec. 80.01(2) or by common-law prescription after 20 years of public use. The plaintiff landowner argued that the town's work was permissive or done for a private easement holder and that the trial court had misallocated the burden of proof on summary judgment. The court held that the defendants made a prima facie showing of adverse public use and maintenance on occupied, agricultural land, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to prove permissive use, which his conclusory affidavits failed to do. It therefore affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether a municipal employer could maintain an exclusive dues checkoff arrangement only with the certified majority union under Wisconsin's Municipal Employment Relations Act. The Milwaukee Federation of Teachers challenged the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission's ruling allowing such exclusivity while denying it to minority unions. The court decided that the prior prohibition on exclusive checkoffs remains in effect despite 1971 amendments authorizing fair-share agreements, reversing the lower court's order. The reasoning centered on the statutory language permitting dues deductions when authorized by employees individually, without limitation to majority unions, and the legislative intent not to allow arrangements that entrench the dominant union.

labor & employment

This case arose from a school laboratory accident in which student Ronald Rixmann suffered burns after fellow students ignited alcohol near a heated beaker and a teacher attempted to extinguish the flames. The appeal raised questions about whether the trial court properly limited recovery of past medical expenses reimbursed by insurance, refused to direct a verdict finding certain defendants negligent as a matter of law, and capped damages under Wis. Stat. sec. 895.43. The court held that the students' negligence remained a substantial factor in the injuries because the teacher's intervening actions did not constitute a superseding cause, that medical-expense recovery rules required clarification under subrogation and collateral-source principles, and that liability must be reapportioned. It therefore reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial on both liability apportionment and damages, without reaching the constitutional challenge to the damages cap.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted on two drug charges—delivery of LSD and possession of cocaine with intent to deliver—for which he received identical concurrent sentences; he appealed only the cocaine conviction, arguing insufficient evidence and challenging the use of prior acts evidence to prove intent. The court first addressed whether to apply the concurrent sentence doctrine to decline review of the appealed conviction. It declined to adopt the doctrine, reasoning that the companion conviction had not been affirmed on appeal and distinguishing prior federal cases where the doctrine was invoked only after affirmation of at least one count. On the merits, the court found the evidence, including prior sales of other drugs and related paraphernalia, sufficient to support the intent element under the circumstantial evidence standards of the relevant statute.

criminal law

The case involved a defendant convicted of attempted rape who appealed on grounds that statements he made to police should have been suppressed, the evidence was insufficient, and the jury should have been instructed on battery as a lesser offense. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the defendant's statements were admissible because police had scrupulously honored his initial invocations of the rights to silence and counsel before he voluntarily initiated further conversations and waived those rights. The court further held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict and that no battery instruction was required under the facts presented.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved property owners suing a pipeline construction company and several municipalities for damages allegedly caused by the company's large-scale dewatering of groundwater during a sewer project, relying on a recently adopted Restatement rule imposing liability for unreasonable harm from lowering the water table. The trial court sustained demurrers, ruling that the suit could not proceed as a class action because individual issues predominated over common ones and that the plaintiffs' causes of action had not been separately stated. On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the action did not qualify as a class action under the 1973 statute because the named plaintiffs lacked a sufficiently common interest with absent class members, but it concluded that the named plaintiffs' separate claims could be joined due to their shared interest in the municipal defendants' liability for the same course of conduct. The court vacated the demurrer order and remanded with directions to require the plaintiffs to make their complaint more definite and certain rather than dismissing on the separate-statement ground.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction for burglary and attempted theft based on circumstantial evidence. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict. The court reasoned that inconsistencies in the evidence, such as mismatched footprints, failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and that a negative inference from the defendant's fabricated alibi story required independent supporting evidence, which was lacking.

criminal lawprocedure

In Schultz v. State, the defendant appealed his first-degree murder conviction for killing his wife, challenging the trial court's alleged usurpation of prosecutorial functions through witness questioning and trial management, the admissibility of his post-arrest statement to police, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The court affirmed the conviction and order, holding that the trial judge's interventions were limited to clarifying relevant evidence without demonstrating partisanship or cumulative prejudice to the jury, as the judge instructed jurors to disregard any inferences of guilt from his participation. On the remaining issues, the court found the defendant's statement properly evaluated for admissibility and that independent corroborating evidence, including the defendant's own testimony about marital conflicts and his actions, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude he acted with intent to kill.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved parents challenging a Wisconsin school district's refusal to provide publicly funded transportation for their children to a private school located more than five miles outside the district boundaries, claiming that the statutory transportation rules under sec. 121.54(2) violated equal protection by creating unreasonable distinctions between public and private school students. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief to compel transportation, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court identified a threshold jurisdictional issue not addressed by the parties: the failure to serve the state attorney general as required by the declaratory judgment statute when a constitutional challenge to a state law is involved. The court held that this service requirement applies even to challenges focused on the application of a statute, as the purpose is to allow the attorney general to represent broader state interests in cases of statewide importance. Because the attorney general was not served, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, leading the Supreme Court to vacate the judgment and order dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over the terms of a renewal promissory note arising from a sales contract between plaintiff Jack Kohlenberg and defendant American Plumbing Supply Co., specifically whether an oral conversation modified the note to permit prepayment from another source, whether a partial tender discharged liability for interest and fees, and whether the plaintiff could recover attorney’s fees beyond statutory amounts. The trial court found that the oral statements constituted a valid modification of the note. On appeal, the court determined that the parties’ written note controlled and was not altered by the conversation, that tender of less than the full amount did not stop the accrual of interest or allow avoidance of collection costs, and that attorney’s fees were recoverable only under the security agreement or statute for collateral liquidation, not the note litigation itself. The appellate court modified the judgment to award the plaintiff the unpaid principal and interest plus statutory costs and affirmed the decision as modified.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned two defendants charged with manufacturing the controlled substance methamphetamine in violation of Wisconsin Statute section 161.41(1)(b). The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the information failed to state a crime because no actual methamphetamine or designated immediate precursor was found, and that the preliminary hearing evidence did not establish probable cause. The court rejected both arguments, holding that the statute prohibits the acts of production, preparation, or processing that lead to a controlled substance and does not require the finished product to exist. It further concluded that the seized equipment, chemicals, and one-step-away precursor phenyl-2-propanone supplied sufficient evidence of probable cause. The order denying dismissal was affirmed and the matter remanded for trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Haugen v. Haugen involved a father's appeal from a trial court order denying his request to transfer custody of the children from the mother, with whom custody had originally been placed by stipulation in the divorce proceedings. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact concerning the parents' fitness and the children's best interests, requiring remand for such findings rather than reviewing the custody decision on the merits. The court reasoned that because the initial custody award was by stipulation without a full judicial evaluation, a contested modification necessitates explicit factual findings based on evidence from a full-scale hearing. Regarding the record, the court found that the failure to record certain in-chambers discussions with the guardian ad litem and closing arguments was not reversible error, though proper recording procedures should be followed in judicial proceedings.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a real estate broker, Woodland Realty, seeking a commission from sellers, the Winzenrieds, after procuring buyers whose offer to purchase was subject to obtaining specific financing. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the broker was not entitled to the commission. The court reasoned that because the buyers could not secure financing exactly matching the terms in the offer (due to an interest rate escalation clause), the condition precedent was not fulfilled, resulting in no valid and enforceable contract, and thus the buyers were not ready, willing, and able purchasers under the listing agreement.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between the vendors and vendees of a land contract over whether the contract's description of an excluded parcel satisfied the statute of frauds, with the vendees seeking specific performance to obtain an abstract and warranty deed. The trial court found that a surveyor's drawing, supported by parol evidence, sufficiently identified the excluded area to a reasonable certainty and granted relief to the vendees. On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the description in the contract and memorandum, interpreted with extrinsic evidence, met the requirements of the applicable statute of frauds (sec. 240.08, Stats. (1961)) and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the vendors' post-judgment motion. The court reasoned that factual determinations regarding the application of the description were supported by the evidence and that procedural irregularities, such as the lis pendens filing, did not invalidate the judgment.

property

The case concerned whether a plaintiff injured in a slip-and-fall on a public sidewalk could sue abutting property owners for violating a municipal ordinance that required them to remove snow and ice. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The court held that longstanding state precedent establishes that such ordinances do not create a private cause of action or impose negligence per se on violators. Its reasoning was that the municipality bears the primary duty to maintain sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition, the ordinance merely enlists property owners to assist without shifting liability to individuals, and the ordinance protects only the community's general interests rather than any particular class of persons.

torts & liabilityproperty