Recent Appellate Cases - 1/2011

Bell, Moore & Richter, S.C.
Recent Appellate Cases - January, 2011

Hanson v. Dane County, 608 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2010). A private citizen brought a federal claim alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by the county during a sheriff's department response to a 911 call coming from his home. Frank Easterbrook, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, was persuaded by arguments brought by Attys. Tim Yanacheck and Sheila M. Sullivan in affirming the summary judgment granted by a federal district court. Judge Easterbrook agreed that the sheriff's department had probable cause to enter the plaintiff's house because of a reasonable need to investigate a possible incident of domestic abuse. Judge Easterbrook found no valid constitutional issue with the deputies' questioning of the plaintiff's family and questioning of the plaintiff in a separate area of the house.

Rivera v. Perez, 2010 WI App 91, 327 Wis. 2d 467, 787 N.W.2d 882. Attys. Sheila M. Sullivan, Timothy J. Yanacheck and Sarah Germonprez successfully brought an appeal to reverse a trial court's ruling. In a crossclaim action between defendants, the trial court denied a defendant's motion to withdraw her admissions. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion to not allow the admission to be withdrawn, and that summary judgment against the defendant was inappropriate.

Hocking v. City of Dodgeville, 2009 WI 70, 318 Wis. 2d 681, 768 N.W.2d 552. Attys. Patricia J. Epstein and Amy B.F. Tutwiler successfully defended landowners before the Supreme Court in a case challenging long-established surface water liability law. Because the issues in the case threatened far-reaching expansion of landowner liability for stormwater runoff, both the Wisconsin Realtors Association and the Wisconsin Builders Association filed amicus curiae briefs. The firm's clients were sued by their adjacent downgradient neighbors for stormwater runoff on theories of negligence and nuisance law. Based on arguments by the defense, the majority opinion by Justice Ziegler and the concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson agreed that the defendants were not subject to liability.

Krier v. Vilione, 2009 WI 45, 317 Wis. 2d 288, 766 N.W.2d 517. In this corporate law case, Attys. Ward I. Richter and William C. Williams persuaded the Supreme Court to uphold a Circuit Court decision granting of summary judgment in favor of accountants of three business entities. The accountants were defending against a derivative lawsuit brought by a former shareholder of one of the entities. The former shareholder attempted to claim damages for future, consequential losses after coming to a settlement with a former co-owner. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit because the plaintiff was not a current shareholder.

Parker v. Wis. Patients Compensation Fund, 2009 WI App 42, 317 Wis. 2d 460, 767 N.W.2d 272. The Court of Appeals affirmed determinations regarding expert witnesses made by a trial court. Attys. David E. McFarlane and Sheila M. Sullivan persuasively briefed the issue regarding a trial court's broad discretion to make evidentiary rulings. The Court of Appeals refused to disturb the Circuit Court's determinations, which allowed an extension of time for the defendant's scheduling order and denied the plaintiff's motion to allow her own primary physician to testify as an expert witness regarding a surgical procedure.

Hefty v. Strickhouser, 2008 WI 96, 312 Wis. 2d 530, 752 N.W.2d 820. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a plaintiff represented by Attys. Ward I. Richter and Sheila M. Sullivan in this procedural dispute involving local Circuit Court rules. The Supreme Court affirmed a Court of Appeals determination, reasoning that the Circuit Court erroneously exercised its discretion when it refused to accept the plaintiff's response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Circuit Court had applied a local rule that the Supreme Court, upon its review, ruled as void because the local rule was inconsistent with the procedure specified in the Wisconsin Statutes.

[BACK TO TOP]


DISCLAIMER: Information contained on this page, any links to it or documents that may be downloaded from it are intended to provide the reader with general educational information only. Such information is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion relative to specific matters or fact situations. Changes in the law may affect the contents of such information. Readers should not make decisions based on this information alone without first consulting with their attorney.