State v. Vincent T. Grady, 2007 WI 81, affirming 2006 WI App 188 For Grady: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶20 A prior interpretation of a statute is applied when courts subsequently consider the same statute. Progressive Northern Ins. Co. v. Romanshek, 2005 WI 67, ¶41, 281 Wis. 2d 300, 697 N.W.2d 417. The court may overturn a prior interpretation… Read more
a. Binding authority
State v. Steven P. Muckerheide, 2007 WI 5, affirming unpublished opinion For Muckerheide: Mark S. Rosen Issue/Holding: ¶38 We agree with the State’s assertion that cases from other jurisdictions are not binding on Wisconsin courts. State ex rel. E.R. v. Flynn, 88 Wis. 2d 37, 46, 276 N.W.2d 313 (Ct. App. 1979). We recognize that such case law… Read more
State v. Owen Budd, 2007 WI App 245 For Budd: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Review of a published court of appeals’ decision by the supreme court leaves intact any portion of the opinion not reversed, ¶13 n. 4, citing State v. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, ¶40. Jones itself holds: We agree with the State that… Read more
State v. Steven A. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26 For Harvey: Christopher William Rose Issue/Holding: ¶18 However, our rejection of the Committee’s definition of cunnilingus does not fully resolve this issue since, as we have observed, this definition met with at least tacit approval by the Childs court. However, we are not bound by theChilds case because it… Read more
State v. Kenneth V. Harden, 2005 WI App 252 For Harden: Ralph Sczygelski Issue/Holding: Holding of Wisconsin supreme court binds the court of appeals, such that dicta in decision of latter court in conflict with supreme court holding must be withdrawn, ¶5 citing, Nommensen v. American Continental Ins. Co., 2000 WI App 230, ¶16, 239 Wis. 2d… Read more
State v. Walter Leutenegger, 2004 WI App 127 For Leutenegger: Bill Ginsberg Issue/Holding: “[The court of appeals is] bound by the most recent pronouncements of the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” ¶5, quoting Jones v. Dane County, 195 Wis. 2d 892, 918 n.8, 537 N.W.2d 74 (Ct. App. 1995). And, ¶10, utilizing same quote: “Therefore, we applyRichter because it is the most… Read more
State v. Miyosha White, 2004 WI App 237, PFR filed 12/1/04 For White: Leonard Kachinsky Issue/Holding: ¶7 Here, however, we must first determine whether interpretation of WIS. STAT.§ 973.01(3g), the ERP statute, is governed by Lehman, a decision of this court interpreting the nearly identical language of WIS. STAT. § 973.01(3m), the CIP statute. If Lehman controls the interpretation of… Read more
State v. William L. Morford, 2004 WI 5, on review of unpublished decision For Morford: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue/Holding: ¶33 n. 4: For discussions of Wisconsin’s views on dictum, see, e.g., State v. Picotte, 2003 WI 42, ¶¶60-61 n.16, 261 Wis. 2d 249, 661 N.W.2d 381 (reviewing two lines of cases on dictum); State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77… Read more
