≡ Menu

Published 2004

State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Claim preclusion doesn’t bind subsequent action involving exclusion of evidence due to discovery violation, where sanctioned case was dismissed and then reissued and discovery begun anew:: ¶26. We conclude that claim preclusion is not applicable for two independent reasons… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Defenses – Claim Preclusion, Generally

State ex rel Kim J. Barksdale v. Litscher, 2004 WI App 130 Issue/Holding: ¶13. Barksdale next argues that, even if the circuit court properly allowed the warden to raise claim preclusion as a defense, the defense must fail because all of the elements for claim preclusion are not present. The burden of proving claim preclusion… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Issue preclusion doesn’t bind subsequent action involving exclusion of evidence due to discovery violation, where sanctioned case was dismissed and then reissued and discovery begun anew: ¶22. In the second action, the facts were different in that Miller already… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Judicial estoppel didn’t prevent admissibility of evidence excluded as discovery sanction in prior, dismissed but then reissued action, where judge who dismissed prior action after imposing sanction contemplated that the excluded evidence would not be barred in a… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Larry N. Winsand, 2004 WI App 86, PFR filed 4/12/04 For Winsand: Ralph A. Kalal Issue: Whether results of an Intoximeter EC/IR breath test was inadmissible because approval of this testing instrument by the chief of the DOT chemical test section involved standards that should have been but were not promulgated as administrative rules under… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. James A. Schmidt, 2004 WI App 235 For Schmidt: Daniel S. Diehn Issue: Whether § 343.305(5)(a) requires that the driver request an additional test after the police have administered the primary test and, if not, whether Schmidt’s pre-blood draw request for a breathalyzer was properly rejected. Holding: ¶11. Although Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4) and (5) use… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Arthur C. List, 2004 WI App 230, PFR filed 12/22/04 For List: Joseph L. Polito Issue: Whether an Illinois OWI charge resulting in court supervision is a “conviction” within the meaning of § 343.307(1)(d). Holding: ¶5. List contends that under Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d) only OWI offenses that result in formal conviction as defined by the… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Christopher M. Repenshek, 2004 WI App 229, PFR filed 12/17/04 For Repenshek: Stephen E. Mays Issue/Holding: Refusal to submit to a PBT may support a conclusion of reasonable suspicion for a blood draw: ¶25. Key to understanding our analysis is understanding that Wis. Stat. § 343.303 does not contain a general prohibition on police requesting a PBT… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS