Annette K. Ziegler

Affiliations

• Tatera v. FMC Corp.

  Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2010-07-20 · cited 79×

  This case concerned claims by the estate and widow of Walter Tatera, who died from mesothelioma allegedly caused by machining asbestos-containing friction disks supplied by FMC Corporation to his employer, an independent contractor. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed whether FMC could be held liable in negligence or strict liability under exceptions to the general rule that a principal employer is not liable in tort for injuries to an independent contractor's employee performing contracted work. The court reversed the court of appeals and granted summary judgment to FMC, concluding that neither exception applied: the alleged conduct consisted of omissions rather than affirmative acts of negligence, and machining the disks was not an extrahazardous activity because precautions could minimize the risks. The decision rested on analysis of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388 and prior precedent like Wagner v. Continental Casualty Co.

  torts & liabilitylabor & employment

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (12,805 words)

• State v. Robinson

  Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2010-07-15 · cited 114×

  In State v. Robinson, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed a challenge to the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless police entry into the defendant's apartment, which followed an anonymous tip about marijuana sales and led to his guilty plea for possession with intent to deliver THC. The court assumed without deciding that the officers lacked a valid arrest warrant but held that the entry was nevertheless constitutional. It reasoned that the officers had probable cause after corroborating multiple details from the tip and that exigent circumstances existed because they heard footsteps running from the door immediately after announcing their presence, creating a reasonable belief that evidence would be destroyed. The officers then lawfully seized drugs in plain view and arrested the defendant. The court affirmed the conviction and the court of appeals' decision.

  criminal lawcivil rights

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (11,191 words)

• State v. Ringer

  Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2010-07-08 · cited 56×

  This case concerned a defendant charged with repeated sexual assault of a child, his adopted daughter, who sought to introduce evidence at trial that the complainant had previously made allegedly untruthful sexual assault allegations against her biological father. The circuit court granted the defendant's motion in limine to admit the evidence under Wis. Stat. § 972.11(2)(b)3, and the court of appeals affirmed that ruling. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion because the evidence did not meet the statutory exception for prior untruthful allegations. The court held that a reasonable jury could not find the prior allegations untruthful based on the available reports, testimony, and records, which included some admissions of physical contact by the father, and thus the three-part admissibility test from State v. DeSantis was not satisfied.

  criminal lawprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (7,200 words)

• Konneker v. Romano

  Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2010-07-07 · cited 37×

  This case concerned a dispute over a 20-foot-wide lakefront easement conveyed in 1983 across riparian property owned by the Romanos and Nelsons to the non-riparian Konnekers, where the deed was silent on the easement's use or purpose. The Konnekers sought a declaration that the easement included riparian rights, specifically the right to construct and maintain a pier at Beyer's Cove on Green Lake. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held that summary judgment was improper, finding the deed language ambiguous as to whether the parties intended to grant riparian rights and that competing affidavits created a genuine issue of material fact regarding intent. The court further held that Wis. Stat. §§ 30.131 and 30.133 were inapplicable because the easement predated the statutes and the issue was whether the easement granted such rights rather than the lawfulness of any pier structure. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

  propertyenvironment

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (8,437 words)