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
28. Weight of 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State v. Steven P. Muckerheide, 2007 WI 5, affirming unpublished opinion For Muckerheide: Mark S. Rosen Issue/Holding: ¶38 We agree with the State’s assertion that cases from other jurisdictions are not binding on Wisconsin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. Dwight M. Sanders, 2007 WI App 174, affirmed, 2008 WI 85 For Sanders: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶26 The State argues that our supreme court’s decision in Hughes validates the officers’ hot pursuit entry in this case. In Hughes, the court held that the crime of possession of marijuana was serious enough to justify… Read more
State v. Kevin Brown, 2006 WI App 41 For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶10 We first examine the trial court’s reliance on the earlier order and its determination that it was “the law of the case.” Citing Univest Corp. v. General Split Corp., 148 Wis. 2d 29, 38, 435 N.W.2d 234 (1989)… 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binds the court of appeals, such that dicta in decision of latter court in conflict with supreme court holding must be withdrawn, ¶5 citing, Nommensen v. American Continental Ins.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
