But it ordered the doll's marketer, publishing house K&B Editions, to add a warning that using the needles which come with the kits "constitutes an attack on the personal dignity of Mr. Sarkozy."
The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin is asking the court to set a rule that would require judges to step aside in cases involving a party or an attorney who spent $1,000 or more to get them elected.
Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Realtors Association is asking the court to establish a rule that says a contribution or endorsement by itself is not enough to require a judge to step aside.
[Chief Justice Shirley] Abrahamson is running for another 10-year term in April against Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick.
The issue won't be resolved until after that campaign because a public hearing on the matter isn't scheduled until April 20, two weeks after the election.
Does a trial court have authority to incorporate into a divorce judgment a stipulation requiring a party to maintain a will in favor of an adult child?
If so, is such a stipulation thereafter enforceable only as a judgment or as contract to make a will, or both?
Should an attorney who drafts a will at his client’s direction, which he/she knows violates the terms of such an incorporated stipulation, but who also advises the client that the will could potentially be challenged as a breach of contract, be excused from any third party liability under either a qualified immunity theory or some other good faith advice defense?
Under what circumstances may evidence crucial to a potential legal claim be destroyed?
What notice must be given to a civil litigant before such evidence is destroyed?
Does Wis. Stat. § 26.21 (1), which allows recovery of double damages and reasonable costs of legal representation for damages suffered due to forest fires resulting from willfulness, malice or negligence, apply to all tortfeasors or only to “railroad corporations?”
Does Wis. Stat. § 26.21 (1) apply to all negligence or only to “gross negligence?”
Under State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998), is “other acts” evidence admissible to provide context and rebut a self-defense claim, when the evidence was relevant to explain what the police were doing at the defendant’s residence and what the defendant knew at the time?
Under Sullivan’s independent review doctrine, did the court of appeals independently search the record for other bases to sustain the circuit court’s discretionary decision to admit the evidence?
Does State v. Loutsch, 2003 WI App 16, 259 Wis.2d 901, 656 N.W.2d 781 (when presented with evidence of a defendant’s ability to pay, the trial court must determine the reasonable amount of restitution the defendant will be able to pay within the term of the sentence) correctly interpret Wis. Stat. § 973.20 with respect to the setting of restitution at sentencing?
Was the defendant deprived of his right to a fair and impartial jury where the judge denied the defendant’s motion to strike the judge’s mother as a juror and where the judge commented during voir dire that he considered himself “part of law enforcement”?
Should the trial judge have recused himself from deciding the defendant’s motion to strike the judge’s mother as a juror?
Should the Supreme Court exercise its superintending authority to prohibit judges’ immediate family members from serving on juries?
Does the court of appeals’ decision conflict with the abrogation of the common law privilege to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest articulated in State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998)? How does the decision in State v. Hobson interact with the obstructing an officer statute (Wis. Stat. § 946.41 (1))?
Does the decision conflict with State v. Annina, 2006 WI App 202, 296 Wis. 2d 599, 723 N.W.2d 708 (2006)?
The original plan was for attorneys to be encouraged, but not mandated, to use the new system. However, the BBE recently issued notice to attorneys that they were required to file CLE reports online. In a Wisconsin Law Journal article last week, BBE officials discussed the mandatory online reporting plan.
The agency has returned to encouraging that filing rather than requiring it.
On Nov. 21 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) clarified the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program to include Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA).
[Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael] Gableman, who is facing charges that he violated the Wisconsin Judicial Code of Conduct during his spring race against incumbent Justice Louis Butler, is being represented by prominent Republican attorney James Bopp Jr. who serves as counsel to the National Right to Life Committee and the James Madison Center for Free Speech.
a Membership Satisfaction Survey that focuses on the issue of compulsory membership in the context of members’ personal and professional needs and how the Bar may best be able to address them.
The survey was mailed in mid-November to a random, representative group of 5,000 members.
The first recommendation is that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) be repealed so that the CHRC and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) would no longer deal with hate speech, in particular hate speech on the Internet.
Special Issue: Supreme Court Retrospective. Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than is all too often found in today’s legal community.
In this issue of Class Action Watch, William E. Thomson and Kahn A. Scolnick look at the new punitive damage limits as set by the U.S. Supreme Court. Jim Copland reports on "the largest class-action lawsuit ever filed in America." Jimmy Cline talks about a recent holding by the Arkansas Supreme Court that potential conflicts of law cannot defeat class certification. Laurel Harbour reviews a New Jersey Supreme Court holding that rejected medical monitoring in product liability claims. Lyle Roberts discusses the selection of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in securities class actions. Mark A. Behrens and Frank Cruz-Alvarez report on the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejecting public nuisance claims. And Andrew M. Grossman comments on the Grand Theft Auto class action.
[Steven A.] Levine argued that the money allocated by the bar for public image purposes in fiscal year 2009 should have been included in the Keller dues rebate. The approximately $5.15 per attorney cost does not meet the criteria for mandatory charges, according to Levine.
“I think a public relations campaign designed to make people think better of lawyers is fine, if the bar is not using mandatory dues to do it,” Levine said.
But attorney Roberta F. Howell, who filed a brief on behalf of the bar, indicated that Wisconsin Supreme Court rules and case law permit use of mandatory dues for public image campaign purposes.
Howell said such advertisements serve as public relations tools to increase confidence in attorneys and are reasonable expenses assessed to attorneys.
Milfred [Scott Milfred, Editorial Page Editor, Wisconsin State Journal], whose paper has been advocating a merit selection system to appoint judges, said the practice of electing justices has turned judges into politicians. The election process has turned the Supreme Court into a second Legislature, he said, where parties who don’t get what they want from the legislative branch turn to the justices to change their fortunes. Milfred said that of the last 50 Supreme Court justices, 33 gained their seat on the court initially through appointment by the governor.
“We are appointing our judges already, and the governor is appointing whoever he wants,” he said.
But the other panelists disagreed with merit selection. Crooks [Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Patrick Crooks] pointed out that in many states the merit selection system has become politicized.
Asked to cite a case on which he differed from Abrahamson, Koschnick said she substituted her own judgment when she led the court majority that overturned a law that set pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases at $450,000.
An arbitrator’s decision is expected by the end of the year in a proceeding to determine how costs associated with the State Bar of Wisconsin’s attorney public image campaign should be treated.
The arbitration process was initiated by three attorneys, including former State Bar President Steve Levine, who argue that the Bar should have included image campaign expenditures in the Keller [Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990)] dues rebate for fiscal year 2009.
I think it is highly unlikely the costs of the committee [Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee] will be charged to bar dues; instead, they will be subject to a Keller deduction.
Two members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court will participate in a panel discussion Tuesday examining the influence of money and politics on judicial elections.
Justices Patrick Crooks and Ann Walsh Bradley will be on the "Justice, Money and Politics" panel at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
Mike McCabe, Executive Director, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
Scott Milfred, Editorial Page Editor, Wisconsin State Journal
to develop new rules requiring ad backers to register with the board, ban corporate money for the ads and disclose who funds the ads.
prepared by campaign finance experts at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, would govern ads that have "no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."
Those ads would be defined as appearing within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election and which:
- Refer to the "personal qualities, character or fitness" of a candidate.
- Support or condemn a candidate's position on issues.
- Support or condemn a candidate's public record.
On Nov. 10, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously adopted three Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) petitions, with amendments, relating to suspension for noncompliance with continuing legal education (CLE) requirements and reinstatement, the manner of filing documents relating to CLE requirements, and filing applications for admission and late fees under the diploma privilege.
A common campaign technique is to label judges as “activist judges,” Abrahamson said.
“Sandra Day O’Connor said an activist judge is one who gets out of bed in the morning,” Abrahamson said. “It is a way to slur or slander a judge, primarily when you don’t agree with a decision.
“Judges can differ. It’s OK. But, not on a partisan basis,” Abrahamson said, emphasizing that cases should be decided on the facts and not by judges who “have an agenda” or whose decisions are based on a “dictate of any group of any kind.”
Justices should not be “anti- or pro- anything,” Abrahamson said. Courts should be “neutral, fair, impartial and non-partisan.”
She said Wisconsin “has the most transparent court in the country,” and it is important to keep it that way.
One of the interesting things about the Court of Appeals decision is that it rejected LIRC’s contention that the ministerial exception should not apply when the employer does not claim a religious justification for its decision (as the school here did not). If an employee is within the exception, it applies even if the claimed basis for a termination or other adverse action is secular.
that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday, March 9, 2009, at 9:45 a.m.
that the court's conference in the matter shall be held promptly following the public hearing.
that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday, March 9, 2009, at 9:45 a.m.
that the court's conference in the matter shall be held promptly following the public hearing.
The State Bar reports that the court rejected a portion of the proposed rule that would have barred the public from accessing the electronic filings. Instead, the court determined that electronic copies of filed documents should be made accessible to the public as soon as possible.
that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday, February 9, 2009, at 9:45 a.m.
that the court's conference in the matter shall be held promptly following the public hearing.
that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday, February 9, 2009, at 9:45 a.m.
that the court's conference in the matter shall be held promptly following the public hearing.
Are the defendants entitled to summary judgment on claims based entirely on alleged injuries to a separate non-party corporation in which none of the plaintiffs have any ownership interest?
Rather than assign enforcement duties to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) as originally planned, Zilavy [Thomas D. Zilavy, chair of the State Bar’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee] said the bar plans to create an independent agency housed within the State Bar to handle unauthorized practice of law complaints.
...
Zilavy admitted that specifics of a new enforcement plan have yet to be ironed out, but his expectation was that one half-time person would be hired for the new position. He also estimated that the annual assessment will likely be in the “$10 to $20” range.
...
The State Bar petition suggested that between 10 and 30 complaints will be filed annually, based on the number of complaints handled by the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing for other professions.
On Oct. 28, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously adopted, in principle, rule amendments introducing electronic filing in the state appellate courts and the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Was the stop of the defendant's vehicle a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution?
Was the stop of defendant's vehicle justified by the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution?
Is the community caretaker analysis formulated in State v. Anderson, 142 Wis. 2d 162, 417 N.W.2d 411 (Ct. App. 1987) consistent with Fourth Amendment search and seizure principles?
Did the trial court err by denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his first statement where his Miranda rights were given to him before, but not after, he was placed under arrest?
Did the trial court err by not suppressing the defendant’s second statement as being a product of the first statement as an alleged continuing violation of Grady's constitutional rights?
While it was thought the court would hand down a unanimous ruling on the case, Chief Justice Diana Ross provided the sole dissenting opinion, saying that she could not endorse a blanket decision that did not take into consideration the varying degrees of love.
Under the proposed amended judicial membership class rule, the types of members listed include only those members who serve in a judicial capacity and are not allowed to practice law by rule, statute, or constitution in addition to their adjudicative responsibilities. Some potential types of members that engage in adjudicative type responsibilities but are not included in the class of judicial members are state administrative law judges because they are allowed to practice law in addition to their adjudicative responsibilities.
Whether a jury should hear evidence that the defendant had a “previous conviction for a violent crime” and be instructed to make a finding on that matter during trial for stalking while having “a previous conviction for a violent crime” under Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2) and (2m)(a).
The Wisconsin Supreme Court will schedule another public hearing on Rules Petition 07-09, advanced by the State Bar of Wisconsin, regarding the unauthorized practice of the law (UPL). The court discussed the rule (Legal Services Consumer Protection Act) at an Open Administrative Conference & Rules Hearing on Oct. 28. A motion to deny the proposed rule was rejected on a vote of 3 to 4.
Whether an affidavit in support of a search warrant states probable cause if based in part upon an unwitting co-conspirator's statements to a reliable confidential informant?
Whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies where a neutral and detached magistrate issued a search warrant and the police executed a search in reliance upon it?
May a hospital that has previously accepted Medicare benefits on behalf of a patient as payment in full for in-patient services collect its higher "standard charges" after the expiration of the Medicare benefits period?
Does the Wisconsin Administrative Code require all Medigap policies sold in this state to provide coverage for a hospital’s increased charges after the expiration of the Medicare Benefits period?
Does National States’ Medigap policy limit the amount of coverage to the amount covered by Medicare?
Was the issue whether National States was required to pay the higher "standard" charges fairly debatable, precluding enhanced interest under Wis. Stat. § 628.46?
typographical errors in its order issued July 30, 2008, amending Supreme Court Rules SCR 20:5.5, 20:8.5, and 10.03 (4), and deciding on its own motion to correct the errors so the accurate language is included in the rule when it takes effect on January 1, 2009
Whether the defendant corporation is a “nonprofit organization” as defined in Wis. Stat. § 895.52(1)(c) and Bethke v. Lauderdale of La Crosse, Inc., 2000 WI App 107, 235 Wis. 2d 103, 612 N.W.2d 332 (petition for review denied) and Szarzynski v. YMCA, Camp Minikani, 184 Wis. 2d 875, 888, 517 N.W.2d 135 (1994) for purposes of determining immunity.
On Oct. 14, the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted in principle Judicial Council petition 08-02 to amend Wis. Stat. section (rule) 809.23(3) to allow citation of unpublished Wisconsin appellate opinions for their persuasive value.
The court also unanimously adopted Board of Bar Examiners petition 08-04 relating to procedures for reporting CLE credits.
Whether a governmental entity may, by resolution or ordinance, alter benefits that it had previously promised to employees who had accumulated sufficient work time but had not yet reached the age of retirement.
Is the alleged tortfeasor a “borrowed employee” under Seaman Body Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 204 Wis. 157, 235 N.W. 433 (1931) test?
Does Bartholomew v. Wis. Pats. Comp. Fund, 2006 WI 91, 293 Wis. 2d 38, 717 N.W.2d 216 allow an award of non-economic damages under the facts of Phelps v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 2005 WI 85, 282 Wis. 2d 69, 681 N.W.2d 571?
Whether Finegan v. Wis. Patients Comp. Fund, 2003 WI 98, 263 Wis. 2d 574, 666 N.W.2d 797 and Pierce v. Phys. Ins. Co. of Wis., Inc., 2005 WI 14, 278 Wis. 2d 82, 692 N.W.2d 558 preclude an award for bystander’s emotional distress when the alleged negligent conduct is attenuated in time from the event giving rise to the distress.
Unseating miscreants, smearing chocolate, Pryor restraints, and more
to amend the Code of Judicial Conduct to provide that the receipt of a lawful campaign contribution by a judicial campaign committee or an endorsement of a candidate does not, by itself, warrant judicial recusal.
Posts
All Comments
