Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Supreme Court arguments April 15, 2010

9:45 a.m. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Lister (2008AP2766-D)

10:45 a.m. Miller v. The Hanover Insurance Co. (2008AP1494) review of the Court of Appeals decision on the issues:
Under Wis. Stat. §801.14(2), when a defendant has not been dismissed as a party to an action, may a plaintiff serve an amended complaint on that defendant directly and not serve that defendant’s attorney of record or even provide him with a copy of the pleading when:
(a) the defendant appeared in the case through its attorney of record;

(b) the defendant timely answered the original complaint through that attorney;

(c) the defendant’s attorney never withdrew from the case;

(d) the defendant’s attorney remained the attorney of record throughout the course of the proceedings; and

(e) the trial court never issued an order allowing the plaintiff to serve the party in person?
Can a default judgment be entered on a defendant’s failure to answer an amended complaint within 45 days of service on the defendant directly when:
(a) the defendant was represented by an attorney in the action;

(b) the amended complaint was never served on the defendant’s attorney or a copy provided to the attorney; and

(c) the defendant answered the amended complaint before it was served on its attorney of record?
Do the totality of the interests of justice factors need to be considered on a Motion for relief under Wis. Stat. §806.07(1)(h)?

Did the court of appeals err when it upheld the trial court’s decision limiting the Millers’ $9,666,314.98 damages award to $2,000,000 recovery based on the allegations of the amended complaint, the insurance policies and the law related to default judgment?
Synopis at Supreme court accepts three new cases.

1:30 p.m. Wisconsin Medical Society v. Morgan (2009AP728) on the Court of Appeals certification of the issues:
Do the plaintiffs have a protectable property interest in the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund?

Is a statute that retroactively repudiates a government’s contractual obligation constitutional?
Synopis at Supreme Court accepts one new case.

Supreme Court hears oral argument to decide fate of $200 million transfer from medical malpractice insurance fund, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin