Donald W. Steinmetz

The case concerned whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a criminal prosecution for operating a vehicle while intoxicated under Wis. Stat. §§ 346.63 and 346.65 after the defendant's driving privileges had already been administratively suspended under Wis. Stat. § 343.305(7) and (8) for a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the subsequent criminal prosecution is not prohibited. The court reasoned that the primary purpose of the administrative suspension statute is remedial—to protect the public by removing unsafe drivers from the road—rather than punitive, even if the statute has some deterrent effects, and therefore does not constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes. The decision relied on precedents such as United States v. Halper and distinguished cases involving taxes on illegal activities.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether circuit courts in Wisconsin have authority to review probable cause findings made by court commissioners in involuntary detention proceedings under the Mental Health Act, and what procedures apply to any such review. After two individuals were detained, had probable cause found by a commissioner, and were denied de novo hearings by the circuit court, the Supreme Court held that circuit courts retain original jurisdiction and thus possess the power to review commissioner determinations, though no statute or constitution creates a right to review. The Court decided that any review is discretionary, consists of examining the record, and must occur in a timely manner before the final hearing, distinguishing the situation from prior cases involving dismissals that required circuit court action to enable appeals.

procedurecivil rightshealthcare

In Kleinke v. Farmers Cooperative Supply & Shipping, plaintiffs sued multiple defendants after a fuel oil tank removal error led to 300 gallons of oil being pumped into their basement, causing property damage, physical issues from fumes, and severe emotional distress that forced them to abandon their long-time home. The circuit court dismissed the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim at the pleadings stage, the case proceeded to trial on other claims with partial recovery, and costs were awarded including mediation fees and photocopying expenses. On certification from the court of appeals, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that public policy considerations of legal causation, as analyzed in Bowen v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., bar recovery for emotional distress based on negligent property damage. The court also reversed the costs awards, ruling that neither mediation fees nor photocopying expenses are authorized by statute under provisions like Wis. Stat. § 814.04(2) or the omnibus costs statute. The decision emphasized that while negligence elements may be met, legal causation can independently preclude liability, and trial courts lack discretion to tax unenumerated costs.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

The case concerned whether a defendant could enter an Alford plea, as part of a plea agreement, to the charge of child enticement under Wisconsin law when the alleged victim was 16 years old, making it legally impossible to commit that offense. The defendant had originally been charged with second-degree sexual assault and agreed to plead to the amended charge in exchange for a sentencing recommendation. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an Alford plea requires strong proof of guilt as to every element of the charged crime, even in the context of a negotiated plea agreement, and that this standard could not be met here because the victim's age did not satisfy the statutory requirement. The court therefore reversed the decisions below and remanded for the defendant to withdraw the plea to prevent a manifest injustice.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether an employer under Wisconsin's Worker's Compensation Act must pay for an employee's out-of-state medical treatment at the Mayo Clinic, which was referred by the employee's Wisconsin physician, without the employer's prior consent. The Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) determined that consent was not required because the treatment was by referral, not the employee's direct choice, and the circuit court and court of appeals affirmed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the relevant statute, Wis. Stat. § 102.42(2)(a), is ambiguous regarding consent for referred out-of-state care. Giving due deference to LIRC's interpretation as the most reasonable one that aligns with the Act's purpose of facilitating necessary treatment, the court affirmed the lower decisions requiring the employer to cover the expenses.

labor & employment

This case concerned whether Zurich Insurance breached its duty to defend Towne Realty and related insureds in a lawsuit brought by the Balestrieris alleging breach of contract, tortious interference, misrepresentation, and fiduciary breaches. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a tender of defense occurs when the insurer receives notice of the claim against the insured, but that Zurich was not liable for legal expenses incurred before that notice or for expenses in pursuing counterclaims. The core reasoning was that the insurance policy requires defending suits seeking damages from the insured and does not cover pre-tender costs or offensive actions like countersuits, with damages limited to those recoverable under full contractual performance.

business & regulatory