Columbia County v. Fred A. Ederer, 2010AP2369, District 4, 5/12/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ederer: John Smerlinski; case activity Ederer’s no contest plea waived his right to appeal suppression issue in this OWI-1st (therefore, civil) case. His reliance on County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 275-76, 542 N.W.2d 196… Read more
28. Weight of authority
State v. Brad E. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, reversing 2010 WI App 11; for Forbush: Craig A. Mastantuono, Rebecca M. Coffee; amicus: Colleen D. Ball, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity Forbush’s 6th amendment right to counsel had already attached – because a criminal complaint had been filed – and he had retained counsel before officers began interrogating him on… Read more
State v. Allen L. Resch, 2010AP2321-CR, District 2, 4/27/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Resch: Christopher Lee Wiesmueller, Corinne N. Wiesmueller; case activity Reasonable suspicion supported investigatory stop for possible burglary, where vehicle was parked in private business parking lot at 2:26 a.m., with engine running and lights off. ¶13 Specifically… Read more
Adam Martine v. Quentin J. Williams, 2011 WI App 68 (recommended for publication); case activity ¶13 Prior to last year, this court applied a general rule regarding court of appeals’ cases reversed by the supreme court that “holdings not specifically reversed on appeal retain precedential value.” Blum v. 1st Auto & Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WI 78… Read more
Richardson v. Henderson, 2010AP1765, District 2, 3/9/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity ¶7, n.4: Our supreme court has held that “when the supreme court overrules a court of appeals decision, the court of appeals decision no longer possesses any precedential value, unless this court expressly states otherwise.” Blum v. 1st… Read more
City of Shawano v. Darlene F. Sense, 2010AP2193-FT, District 3, 2/8/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity; Memo Br.; Memo Resp.; Memo Reply ¶10 As a final matter, we address certain deficiencies in Sense’s appellate brief. First, Sense’s repeated references to “appellant” and “respondent” throughout her brief violate WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(i), which requires reference… Read more
State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3; prior history: 2007 WI 26; for Jensen: Terry W. Rose, Christopher William Rose, Michael D. Cicchini; case activity; (Jensen BiC not posted); State Resp.; Jensen Reply Confrontation – Generally The Confrontation Clause regulates testimonial statements only, such that nontestimonial statements are excludable only under hearsay and other evidence-rule ¶¶22-26, citing Giles v… Read more
State v. Bradley A. Brandsma, 2010AP1429-CR , District 4, 12/23/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brandsma: Anthony J. Jurek; case activity; Brandsma BiC; State Resp.; Reply Trial courts have “very broad discretion” under § 972.12 to allow a deliberating jury to separate overnight before returning to resume deliberations; court of appeals rejects… Read more
