Thursday, March 18, 2010

On appeal, week of March 15, 2010

Opinions issued this week by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Caselaw Express, State Bar of Wisconsin

Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Argument Schedule for April 2010 (updated March 1, 2010)

Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated March 15, 2010) added the recently accepted cases:

Nestle USA, Inc. v. Wis. Dept. of Revenue (2008AP322) review, 2009 WI App 159, 776 N.W.2d 589
What evaluation standards are to be used by the Tax Appeals Commission to assess specialized manufacturing facilities that have a limited market? (See Wis. Stat. §70.32(1), State ex rel. Markarian v. City of Cudahy, 45 Wis. 2d 683, 686, 173 N.W.2d 627 (1970) and State ex rel. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Weiher, 177 Wis. 445, 448, 188 N.W. 598 (1922)).

Whether the tax assessment of a manufacturing facility should be based upon its unique value to the present owner or upon market value.
Town Bank v. City Real Estate Development, LLC (2008AP1845) review, 2009 WI App 160, 777 N.W.2d 98
In a construction finance contract, is an integration clause to specifically identify and expressly negate antecedent agreements required before parol evidence may be barred to determine the contracting parties’ intent? (See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. First Mortgage Investors, 76 Wis. 2d 151, 157-58, 250 N.W.2d 362 (1977) and Dairyland Equip. Leasing, Inc. v. Bohen, 94 Wis. 2d 600, 607-08, 288 N.W.2d 852 (1980)).

Is parol evidence that does not conflict with a subsequent written agreement always admissible to show whether an antecedent agreement was intended to be superceded?
State Supreme Court to review Wisconsin Tower loan dispute, by Tom Daykin, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

State Supreme Court to hear condo case, by Pete Millard, The Business Journal of Milwaukee (via Milwaukee News Buzz)

Brethorst v. Allstate Property and Casualty Ins. Co. (2008AP2595) certification
Whether a finding of wrongful denial of benefits is a condition precedent to proceeding with discovery in a first-party bad faith claim based on wrongful denial of benefits.

In a first-party bad faith claim, if a finding of wrongful denial of benefits is a condition precedent to proceeding with bad faith discovery, does the trial court err if it refuses to grant the insurance company’s motion to bifurcate the issues for discovery?

Do the same policy considerations that make it error for the trial court to refuse a motion to bifurcate simultaneous bad faith and breach of contract claims – avoiding undue prejudice to the insurance company, avoiding jury confusion and promoting settlement – make it error to refuse a motion to bifurcate the same two issues when the insured’s only claim is bad faith?
State v. Carter (2008AP3144-CR) review, 2009 WI App 156, 775 N.W.2d 297
Do violations of Illinois’ zero tolerance (absolute sobriety) law count as prior offenses for sentence enhancement purposes under Wisconsin’s Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) Law (Wis. Stat. §§346.63 and 346.65)?

What methodology are trial courts to employ in determining whether to count out-of-state OWI-related offenses for sentence enhancement purposes under Wis. Stat. §343.307?
High court to consider rules for out-of-state OWIs, Wisconsin State Journal (via WisPolitics)

Synopses of the above cases at Supreme Court accepts four new cases

Update: State high court to consider sick day law, by Georgia Pabst, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated December 11, 2009)

Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated March 4, 2010)