Sunday, May 30, 2010
Repudiated by Its Friends
Chapter XX of Part One of Political Reform in Wisconsin (1910) by Emanuel L. Philipp (see Introduction and Contents)
Three times since it was enacted into law and put in force in 1904 by approval of the voters at the polls, has the primary statute been repudiated by the men who were responsible for its adoption as the law of Wisconsin. In 1906 Francis McGovern was a candidate for renomination for the office of district attorney of Milwaukee county, and he was defeated by Frank X. Boden by a vote of 13,605 to 12,906. This was the result of a direct primary where the voters used the ordinary ballot, the nearest approach to an Australian ballot known in this state, and signified their choice of candidates under a system designed to give "the people the absolute power to say who their candidates for office should be--of insuring to each man an equal voice in the selection of candidates."
Three times since it was enacted into law and put in force in 1904 by approval of the voters at the polls, has the primary statute been repudiated by the men who were responsible for its adoption as the law of Wisconsin. In 1906 Francis McGovern was a candidate for renomination for the office of district attorney of Milwaukee county, and he was defeated by Frank X. Boden by a vote of 13,605 to 12,906. This was the result of a direct primary where the voters used the ordinary ballot, the nearest approach to an Australian ballot known in this state, and signified their choice of candidates under a system designed to give "the people the absolute power to say who their candidates for office should be--of insuring to each man an equal voice in the selection of candidates."
Friday, May 28, 2010
Order on safekeeping property, 2010 WI 43
The Wisconsin Supreme Court today entered an order [html | pdf] amending SCR SCR 20:1.15 effective January 1, 2011. See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
In the matter of amendment of Supreme Court Rules 20:1.15(b)(4m) and 20:1.15(e)(4)h. Safekeeping Property (06-04)
In the matter of amendment of Supreme Court Rules 20:1.15(b)(4m) and 20:1.15(e)(4)h. Safekeeping Property (06-04)
Order on appendices to petitions for review and briefs, 2010 WI 42
The Wisconsin Supreme Court today entered an order [html | pdf] amending Wis. Stat. §809.19 relating to the content of appellate appendices, and amending Wis. Stat. §809.62 relating to content of appendices to petitions for review, effective January 1, 2011. See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
In the matter of the petition to amend Wis. Stat. s. (Rule) 809.19 relating to the content of appellate appendices (10-01) and In the matter of the petition to amend Wis. Stat. s. (Rule) 809.62 relating to content of Appendix to Petitions for Review (10-02)
In the matter of the petition to amend Wis. Stat. s. (Rule) 809.19 relating to the content of appellate appendices (10-01) and In the matter of the petition to amend Wis. Stat. s. (Rule) 809.62 relating to content of Appendix to Petitions for Review (10-02)
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Decision in 'Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Boyd' 2010 WI 41
5th offense gets lawyer 1 year suspension, by Bruce Vielmetti, Proof and Hearsay
Various derelictions warrant 12-month license suspension, by the Wisconsin State Public Defender, at On Point
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2009AP774-D) ordering a 12 month suspension consecutive to existing disciplinary suspensions, and restitution to several clients.
Opinion Per Curiam.
Dissent by Justice Bradley from the denial of restitution to one client.
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Various derelictions warrant 12-month license suspension, by the Wisconsin State Public Defender, at On Point
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2009AP774-D) ordering a 12 month suspension consecutive to existing disciplinary suspensions, and restitution to several clients.
Opinion Per Curiam.
Dissent by Justice Bradley from the denial of restitution to one client.
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Obstruction of Justice Act
The misnamed Whistleblower Protection Act is an affront to the right of compulsory process.
State Bar practice sections rack up legislative victories during 2009-10 session
Adam Korbitz, Government Relations Coordinator, State Bar of Wisconsin, reports
These section victories complement what was also a highly productive lobbying year for the State Bar’s Board of Governors. Fifteen of the State Bar’s 26 sections have adopted lobbying status and can take public policy positions in addition to those adopted by the BOG.
Decision in 'State v. Carter' 2010 WI 40
The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2008AP1185-CR) reversing the Court of Appeals. See Argument.
Opinion by Justice Ziegler, joined by Justices Crooks, Prosser, Roggensack, and Gableman.
Attorney not ineffective, in part because trial strategy was reasonable, supreme court holds, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin
Opinion by Justice Ziegler, joined by Justices Crooks, Prosser, Roggensack, and Gableman.
¶3 We conclude that the court of appeals improperly remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. Carter's ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails under the two-part inquiry of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). First, his trial counsel's performance was not deficient. His counsel's strategic decision not to introduce evidence that the child victim was previously sexually assaulted was objectively reasonable considering all the circumstances. Second, even assuming that his counsel's performance was deficient, the deficiency did not prejudice Carter's defense. Evidence that the child victim was previously sexually assaulted would have been inadmissible under Wisconsin's rape shield law, Wis. Stat. §972.11(2) (2007-08),[4] and the narrow five-part test articulated in State v. Pulizzano, 155 Wis. 2d 633, 656-57, 456 N.W.2d 325 (1990). Accordingly, this court reverses the court of appeals' decision and upholds the judgment of the circuit court denying Carter's post-conviction motion for a new trial.Concurrence by Justice Bradley, joined by Chief Justice Abrahamson.
¶78 I agree with the majority that the evidence Carter presented at the post-conviction hearing was insufficient to satisfy the Pulizzano test. ...See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
¶79 ... I am at a loss to understand why the majority feels compelled to go further here. I cannot understand why it unnecessarily concludes that Sargent made a "reasonable strategic decision," even though this decision was apparently made in ignorance of the law and left unaddressed a question fundamental to the defense in this case. Accordingly, I respectfully concur.
Attorney not ineffective, in part because trial strategy was reasonable, supreme court holds, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin
Richard Epstein on the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Libertarian theory requires the state to enforce property rights and contracts. These decisions flew in the face of those principles. At its best, and in its original form, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to break the control of the local segregationist forces over their political institutions. First on the list was Title I, which attacked exclusion from voting. Next was Title II, which dealt with the question of public accommodations. Title II did not create any elaborate federal agency. In the aftermath of the sit-ins, it was intended to counteract the manifest abuse of state power that fostered segregated institutions. It was welcomed by virtually every national company that did business in the South, for at long last it put federal power in opposition to corrupt state power. The instantaneous levels of compliance with its mandate were well-nigh universal. The South was a freer place after its passage than before.
Monday, May 24, 2010
On appeal, week of May 24, 2010
Opinions issued this week by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated May 25, 2010) with recently accepted cases:
Link Snacks, Inc. v. Link (2008AP2897) review
State v. Burns (2009AP118) review
Dawson v. Town of Jackson (2009AP120) review
Tews v. NHI, LLC (2009AP828) review
Tammy W-G. v. Jacob T. (2009AP2973) certification
Synopses of the above at Supreme Court accepts five new cases
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated March 25, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Argument - none currently scheduled
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated May 10, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated May 25, 2010) with recently accepted cases:
Link Snacks, Inc. v. Link (2008AP2897) review
State v. Burns (2009AP118) review
Dawson v. Town of Jackson (2009AP120) review
Tews v. NHI, LLC (2009AP828) review
Tammy W-G. v. Jacob T. (2009AP2973) certification
Synopses of the above at Supreme Court accepts five new cases
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated March 25, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Argument - none currently scheduled
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated May 10, 2010)
Sunday, May 23, 2010
The Cost of a Campaign
Chapter XIX of Part One of Political Reform in Wisconsin (1910) by Emanuel L. Philipp (see Introduction and Contents)
It cost candidates in the city of Milwaukee $50,479.49 to run for office in 1908 with the primary election law in operation. It cost but $8,280.93 in 1898 when the primary law was not in operation. The difference, $42,198.56, it will be conceded, is a heavy tax to place upon candidates for office. It is true there were more candidates running for office in 1908 than in 1898, but that is merely another illustration of the operations of the new statute. So far as the operations of the corrupt practices act are concerned it may be said that when that law was new it was respected and obeyed by a large percentage of the candidates for office. The only material change made in the law since 1897 has been to require the district attorney to demand statements from candidates who have failed to comply with its provisions after a certain period.
It cost candidates in the city of Milwaukee $50,479.49 to run for office in 1908 with the primary election law in operation. It cost but $8,280.93 in 1898 when the primary law was not in operation. The difference, $42,198.56, it will be conceded, is a heavy tax to place upon candidates for office. It is true there were more candidates running for office in 1908 than in 1898, but that is merely another illustration of the operations of the new statute. So far as the operations of the corrupt practices act are concerned it may be said that when that law was new it was respected and obeyed by a large percentage of the candidates for office. The only material change made in the law since 1897 has been to require the district attorney to demand statements from candidates who have failed to comply with its provisions after a certain period.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Decision in 'Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Anderson' 2010 WI 39
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2007AP2617-D) ordering a 60 day suspension. Opinion Per Curiam. See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Criminal defense lawyer suspended, by Bruce Vielmetti, Proof and Hearsay
Criminal defense lawyer suspended, by Bruce Vielmetti, Proof and Hearsay
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Decision in 'State v. Jensen' 2010 WI 38
Misconduct in Public Office, § 946.12(3) – Venue, § 971.19(12), by the Wisconsin State Public Defender, at On Point
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2008AP552-CR) reversing the Court of Appeals, 2009 WI App 26, 316 Wis. 2d 377, 762 N.W.2d 833. See Argument.
Opinion by Justice Roggensack, joined by Justices Crooks, Ziegler, and Gableman.
Concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson, joined by Justice Bradley.
Justice Prosser did not participate.
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2008AP552-CR) reversing the Court of Appeals, 2009 WI App 26, 316 Wis. 2d 377, 762 N.W.2d 833. See Argument.
Opinion by Justice Roggensack, joined by Justices Crooks, Ziegler, and Gableman.
Concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson, joined by Justice Bradley.
Justice Prosser did not participate.
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Avoiding difficult questions
Don't have time to read Judge Crabb's 80-page opinion on the National Day of Prayer? Or Supreme Court nominees' law review articles? Just change the subject.
Monday, May 17, 2010
On appeal, week of May 17, 2010
Opinions issued this week by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated May 17, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated March 25, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Argument - none currently scheduled
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated May 10, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated May 17, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated March 25, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Argument - none currently scheduled
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated May 10, 2010)
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Questions that Must Be Answered
Chapter XVIII of Part One of Political Reform in Wisconsin (1910) by Emanuel L. Philipp (see Introduction and Contents)
The questions to be answered by the people of Wisconsin at this time are: Is the primary election law worth what it has cost the state in money and bad blood? Has it fulfilled any of the promises of its advocates? Has it dethroned the political boss and destroyed the political machine? Have the political morals of the state been elevated by it? Has it improved the personnel of the office holding class? Has the public service been benefited by its operations? Has it made corrupt practices in the nomination of candidates more difficult? Has this law, which was recommended as "going to the very groundwork of popular government" by giving the voter a direct voice in the nomination of candidates, resulted in any benefit, direct or indirect, to the voter himself? Has it brought the government "closer to the people?" Are the people's liberties more securely guarded? Are the people better governed since that law went into operation?
The questions to be answered by the people of Wisconsin at this time are: Is the primary election law worth what it has cost the state in money and bad blood? Has it fulfilled any of the promises of its advocates? Has it dethroned the political boss and destroyed the political machine? Have the political morals of the state been elevated by it? Has it improved the personnel of the office holding class? Has the public service been benefited by its operations? Has it made corrupt practices in the nomination of candidates more difficult? Has this law, which was recommended as "going to the very groundwork of popular government" by giving the voter a direct voice in the nomination of candidates, resulted in any benefit, direct or indirect, to the voter himself? Has it brought the government "closer to the people?" Are the people's liberties more securely guarded? Are the people better governed since that law went into operation?
Friday, May 14, 2010
Order on lawyer assessment, treatment, and monitoring, 2010 WI 36
The Wisconsin Supreme Court today entered an order [html | pdf] effective July 1, 2010 establishing procedures for lawyer support and monitoring within the State Bar of Wisconsin and for the Office of Lawyer Regulation to refer lawyers for assessment, treatment, and monitoring.
Opinion Per Curiam.
Chief Justice Abrahamson dissents in part, joined by Justice Bradley.
In the matter of creation of procedures for lawyer support and monitoring and procedures for referrals from the Office of Lawyer Regulation (08-28)
Opinion Per Curiam.
Chief Justice Abrahamson dissents in part, joined by Justice Bradley.
In the matter of creation of procedures for lawyer support and monitoring and procedures for referrals from the Office of Lawyer Regulation (08-28)
Decision in 'Zarder v. Acuity' 2010 WI 35
The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2008AP919) affirming the Court of Appeals, 2009 WI App 34, 316 Wis. 2d 573, 765 N.W.2d 839. See Argument. Opinion by Justice Bradley for a unanimous court.
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Hit and run does not require fleeing, by David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal
Insurance company must provide coverage under “hit-and-run” policy term, supreme court holds, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Hit and run does not require fleeing, by David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal
Insurance company must provide coverage under “hit-and-run” policy term, supreme court holds, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin
Still Great
Ryan P. Williams reviews 'The Founding Fathers Reconsidered', by R.B. Bernstein, in Claremont Review of Books.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Decision in 'Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Blise' 2010 WI 34
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2007AP2604-D). Opinion Per Curiam. Public reprimand ordered. Referee's denying attorney's request to adjourn the disciplinary hearing when attorney was suffering the effects of chemotherapy was not an abuse of discretion.
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Personal jurisdiction in Wisconsin is a mess
The Court of Appeals thinks it would violate due process for a Wisconsin court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a trust, even though the trust owns real property in Wisconsin.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Supreme Court Rules Hearings May 11, 2010
1:30 p.m. In re: Proposed Amendment to Rule 809.19(2) relating to the Content of Appellate Appendices (10-01)
1:30 p.m. In re: Proposed Amendments to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.62(2)(f) relating to content of Appendix to Petitions for Review (10-02)
See earlier posts
1:30 p.m. In re: Proposed Amendments to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.62(2)(f) relating to content of Appendix to Petitions for Review (10-02)
See earlier posts
Fan mail
"I love the Federalist Society." --Dean Elena Kagan, 2005 *
Update: President Obama and Solicitor General Elena Kagan Speak to the Press, May 10, 2010 10:00 AM EDT
P.S. "Good lord, she loves the Federalist Society?"--Ed Garvey
* More context from Jim Lindgren at The Volokh Conspiracy
Update: President Obama and Solicitor General Elena Kagan Speak to the Press, May 10, 2010 10:00 AM EDT
P.S. "Good lord, she loves the Federalist Society?"
* More context from Jim Lindgren at The Volokh Conspiracy
On appeal, week of May 10, 2010
Opinions issued this week by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated May 6, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated March 25, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Argument - none currently scheduled
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated May 10, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated May 6, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated March 25, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Argument - none currently scheduled
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated May 10, 2010)
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Boll sworn in as bar president
Jane Pribek reports in the Wisconsin Law Journal
Update: President-elect James Boll sworn in as 55th State Bar President, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin
Update: President-elect James Boll sworn in as 55th State Bar President, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin
State Bar Board of Governors debates tough issues at May 4-5 Board meeting
Our State Bar reported
Other Baord actions in the State Bar report were
Board authorizes petitions for voluntary-mandatory bar resolutionSpecifically,
1.That the report of the Strategic Planning Committee attached to this resolution is accepted and placed on file; andUpdate: Bar leaders alter petition, support membership review, by Jack Zemlicka, Wisconsin Law Journal
2.That the Wisconsin Supreme Court be asked to review the status of the integrated bar; and
3.That the Strategic Planning Committee is authorized to draft two or more petitions with the Wisconsin Supreme Court requesting that it review the status of the integrated bar and whether it should be modified or made voluntary; and
4.That all members of the Board of Governors are invited to participate in drafting and advancing the respective petitions.
Other Baord actions in the State Bar report were
approves petition to increase pay for court-appointed lawyersNext Board of Governors meeting June 25, 2010 at the State Bar Center, Madison
approves a resolution for petition on unauthorized practice of law
adopts resolution to petition supreme court on OLR fund lapse
approves modifications to bylaws concerning dispute resolution between sections
approves motion to support petitions relating to appellate practice
approves proposal to move additional Board meeting offsite for 2010-11 term
approves appointments to the Board Nomination Committee
Decision in 'Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue' 2010 WI 33
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision May 5, 2010 in this case (2008AP1684) affirming the Court of Appeals, 2009 WI App 69. See issue at Supreme Court pending cases August 19, 2009, and synopsis at Supreme Court accepts four new cases.
Opinion by Chief Justice Abrahamson, joined by Justices Bradley, Crooks, Prosser, and Ziegler.
Concerrence and dissent by Justice Roggensack, joined by Justice Gableman.
Symphony is “entertainment” subject to sales tax on admissions, supreme court holds, by Joe Forward, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin
Supreme Court says MSO tickets subject to sales tax, by David Schuyler, The Business Journal of Milwaukee
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Opinion by Chief Justice Abrahamson, joined by Justices Bradley, Crooks, Prosser, and Ziegler.
Concerrence and dissent by Justice Roggensack, joined by Justice Gableman.
Symphony is “entertainment” subject to sales tax on admissions, supreme court holds, by Joe Forward, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin
Supreme Court says MSO tickets subject to sales tax, by David Schuyler, The Business Journal of Milwaukee
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Decision in 'Estate of Sheppard v. Schleis' 2010 WI 32
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision May 4, 2010 in this case (2009AP1021) on bypass of the Court of Appeals. Opinion by Chief Justice Abrahamson for a unanimous court. See Argument.
Recipient of pay-on-death account funds not liable for estate taxes, Supreme Court holds, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin
Estate liable for taxes on P.O.D. accounts, by David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Recipient of pay-on-death account funds not liable for estate taxes, Supreme Court holds, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin
Estate liable for taxes on P.O.D. accounts, by David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Supreme Court approves discovery rules to address electronically stored information
Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin, reports.
In the matter of amendment of Wis. Stat. ss. 802.10, 804.08, 804.09, 804.12, and 805.07 (09-01)
In the matter of amendment of Wis. Stat. ss. 802.10, 804.08, 804.09, 804.12, and 805.07 (09-01)
Supreme Court approves Judicial Council, BBE rule-making petitions
Adam Korbitz, Government Relations Coordinator, State Bar of Wisconsin, reports.
In the Matter of the Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule SCR 40.08 Relating to Adverse Determinations of Bar Applicants’ Character and Fitness (08-11)
In the Matter of the Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule SCR 40.08 Relating to Adverse Determinations of Bar Applicants’ Character and Fitness (08-11)
Supreme court adopts procedures for referral and monitoring program
Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin, reports.
In the Matter of the Petition For Lawyer Support and Monitoring And Procedures for Referrals from The Office of Lawyer Regulation (08-28)
In the Matter of the Petition For Lawyer Support and Monitoring And Procedures for Referrals from The Office of Lawyer Regulation (08-28)
The Conflicting Decisions
Chapter XVII of Part One of Political Reform in Wisconsin (1910) by Emanuel L. Philipp (see Introduction and Contents)
At the convention held in the Fuller Opera house the same evening a committee on credentials was appointed to which was delivered the record of the credentials secured by the minority of the state central committee. The copies of the credentials were examined by the committee and all cases where contests had been filed were presented to and acted upon by the convention itself. When this work was completed and a vote was taken it was found there was present in the stalwart convention, and voting, 567 duly elected republican delegates, or a majority of sixty-nine votes of the entire number legally qualified to sit in a republican convention.
At the convention held in the Fuller Opera house the same evening a committee on credentials was appointed to which was delivered the record of the credentials secured by the minority of the state central committee. The copies of the credentials were examined by the committee and all cases where contests had been filed were presented to and acted upon by the convention itself. When this work was completed and a vote was taken it was found there was present in the stalwart convention, and voting, 567 duly elected republican delegates, or a majority of sixty-nine votes of the entire number legally qualified to sit in a republican convention.
Friday, May 7, 2010
The Old Race of Judges
Bradley C. S. Watson reviews 'A Time to Speak: Selected Writings and Arguments', by Robert H. Bork, in the Claremont Review of Books
Monday, May 3, 2010
On appeal, week of May 3, 2010
Opinions issued this week by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated April 27, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated March 25, 2010)
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated April 26, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated April 27, 2010)
Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated March 25, 2010)
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated April 26, 2010)
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Order on disclosure of evidence from mediation, 2010 WI 31
The Wisconsin Supreme Court April 29, 2010 entered an order [html | pdf] amending Wisconsin Statutes sec. 904.085(4)(e), effective July 1, 2010, as follows:
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Supreme Court approves Judicial Council, BBE rule-making petitions, by Adam Korbitz, Government Relations Coordinator, State Bar of Wisconsin
In an action or proceeding distinct from the dispute whose settlement is attempted through mediation, the court may admit evidence otherwise barred by this section if, after an in camera hearing, it determines that admission is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the importance of protecting the principle of confidentiality in mediation proceedings generally.In the matter of amendment of Wis. Stat. s. 904.085(4)(e) relating to communications in mediation as evidence (09-12)
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Supreme Court approves Judicial Council, BBE rule-making petitions, by Adam Korbitz, Government Relations Coordinator, State Bar of Wisconsin
Decision in 'Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Rothstein' 2010 WI 30
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision April 28, 2010 in this case (2010AP494-D) ordering revocation, reciprocal to Minnesota. Opinion Per Curiam. See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The easy way to disbar a Wisconsin lawyer, by Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
The easy way to disbar a Wisconsin lawyer, by Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Decision in 'Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kline' 2010 WI 29
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision April 28, 2010 in this case (2009AP1938-D) ordering revocation, reciprocal to Illinois. Opinion Per Curiam. See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The easy way to disbar a Wisconsin lawyer, by Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
The easy way to disbar a Wisconsin lawyer, by Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Arbitrary Usurpation
Chapter XVI of Part One of Political Reform in Wisconsin (1910) by Emanuel L. Philipp (see Introduction and Contents)
As has been explained, it was the intention of the stalwarts to make the primary election measure the main issue in the campaign of 1904. It was believed that, by concentrating on this issue, by conducting a vigorous stumping campaign led by Senators Spooner and Quarles, and by circulating literature explaining clearly the character of the proposed law, many who had been indifferent to the movement and others who had supported it could be convinced of its unwisdom and induced to cast their votes against the approval of the bill.
As has been explained, it was the intention of the stalwarts to make the primary election measure the main issue in the campaign of 1904. It was believed that, by concentrating on this issue, by conducting a vigorous stumping campaign led by Senators Spooner and Quarles, and by circulating literature explaining clearly the character of the proposed law, many who had been indifferent to the movement and others who had supported it could be convinced of its unwisdom and induced to cast their votes against the approval of the bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)