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
28. Weight of authority
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State v. William L. Morford, 2004 WI 5, on review of unpublished decision For Morford: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue/Holding: ¶33 n. 4: For discussions of Wisconsin’s views on dictum, see, e.g., State v. Picotte, 2003 WI 42,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
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
State v. Olayinka Kazeem Lagundoye, 2004 WI 4, affirming 2003 WI App 63, 260 Wis. 2d 805, 659 N.W.2d 501 For Lagundoye: Geoffrey Y. Muwonge Issue/Holding: ¶26. Likewise, it is clear that under Wisconsin’s formulation of the Teague doctrine, the rule we announced in Douangmala was “new.” “‘[A] case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent… Read more
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
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
State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73, on certification (subsequently reversed on other grounds, State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47) For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose Issue/Holding: Supreme court disposition of an earlier appeal via summary order is law of the case as to subsequent appeal; the order resolved a question of law despite failing to state… Read more
