≡ Menu

a. Binding authority

State v. Lucian Agnello II, 2004 WI App 2, (AG’s) PFR filed 1/8/04, on appeal after remand, 2003 WI 44; prior history: State v. Agnello I, 226 Wis.2d 164, 593 N.W.2d 427 (1999) For Agnello: Jerome F. Buting, Pamela Moorshead Issue: Whether the defendant is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea and to have a trial under the supreme… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Binding Authority – US Supreme Court Case Law

State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed, 2004 WI 33 For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: ¶11. As Gary correctly notes, however, we are not bound by the Ohler decision because the Supreme Court’s holding did not rest on an interpretation of U.S. Constitutional or other “federal law” that we must apply in this case. Rather… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Steven G. Walters, 2003 WI App 24, reversed on other grounds, 2004 WI 18 For Walters: Jenelle L. Glasbrenner, David A. Danz Issue/Holding: ¶25. We cannot ignore the arguments offered by the State at the trial court level at both the motion to exclude before Judge Race and the motion for reconsideration before Judge Carlson… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 WI 33 For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: A court of appeals holding in a case reversed by the supreme court on other grounds, so that this holding was neither “overruled, withdrawn, or modified,” continues to bind the court of appeals. ¶13. The court… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Edward Terrell Jennings, 2002 WI 44, on certification For Jennings: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶3. We conclude that when confronted with a direct conflict between a decision of this court and a later decision of the United States Supreme Court on a matter of federal law, the court of appeals may… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Colleen E. Hansen, 2001 WI 53, 243 Wis. 2d 328, 627 N.W.2d 195, on certification For Hansen: Pamela Pepper Issue: Whether a prior decisional pronouncement should be treated as precedential when it is contradicted elsewhere in the decision. Holding: “Because of the internal inconsistency [in the prior decision], no judicial precedent was established… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Paul R. Benzel, 220 Wis. 2d 588, 583 N.W.2d 434 (Ct. App. 1998) Pro se Issue/Holding: The holding of State v. Hall, 207 Wis.2d 54, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997), that the drug tax, § 139.95, is unconstitutional applies retroactively: “failure to do so leads to the untenable result that a person stands convicted for… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS