No decisions were released.

• Arbitration Award/ Contracts/ Settlement
  
  McLaughlin v. Hoffman
  Docket: 2009AP000624 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Paul Hoffman appeals an order confirming an arbitration award and denying his motion to vacate the award, and a judgment for the arbitration award. Hoffman argues the arbitrator exceeded the limits of his authority when applying the terms of the parties' contract. We reject Hoffman's argument and affirm.
• Attorney Fees/ Sanctions/ Antitrust/ Settlement/ Costs/ Public Policy
  
  Bettendorf v. Microsoft Corporation
  Docket: 2008AP003215 12-22-09
  Recommended for Publication

  CURLEY, P.J. Both the appeal and cross-appeal in this matter center primarily on the issue of attorney fees awarded pursuant to a judgment against Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft). Microsoft argues that the Bettendorf attorneys' attempted deception and lack of candor in their fee petition required the imposition of a significant sanction--namely, the denial of all attorney fees--and that the trial court erred in awarding the Bettendorf attorneys $1.25 million in fees for time spent litigating their fee petition. In contrast, Candace Bettendorf, Bettendorf Transfer, Inc., Dunn County, Jackson County, School District of Hudson, and Wisconsin Counties Association (collectively referred to as Bettendorf using the singular pronoun "she") cross-appeal, arguing that the awards of $4 million in fees in the underlying litigation and $1.25 million in fees and $190,000 in expenses related to the subsequent fee dispute are inadequate.
• Contracts/ Apparent Authority
  
  Custom Steel, Inc. v. Wanta Builders, Inc.
  Docket: 2009AP000526 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. John Wanta Builders, Inc., (Builders) appeals a judgment awarding Custom Steel, Inc., (Custom) $23,363.39 on a contract for the delivery of a specially manufactured steel product. Builders contends there was no valid contract because the "quote letter" was never validly accepted by Builders. We conclude a contract was formed by acceptance of the quote letter by a person with apparent authority.
• Contracts/ Misrepresentation/ Corporations/ Minority Shareholders/ Damages/ Standing/ Statute Of Limitations/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation/ Evidence/ Prejudgment Interest
  
  Andrews Revocable Trust v. Vrakas/Blum, S.C.
  Docket: 2008AP001806 12-23-09
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, J. This appeal and cross-appeal arise from an action brought by Windsor Homes, Inc. (Windsor), and minority shareholders against Vrakas/Blum for its activities in connection with the marketing and sale of Windsor's assets. Windsor brought direct claims and the minority shareholders brought derivative claims alleging breach of contract, strict responsibility misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. Following a bench trial, the circuit court dismissed all of the minority shareholders' derivative claims and Windsor's breach of contract claim. However, the court awarded judgment and damages of $2.9 million to Windsor on its strict responsibility and negligent misrepresentation claims for Vrakas/Blum's nondisclosure of information relating to the marketing and sale of Windsor president Len Linzmeier's stock to a third party.
• Contracts/ Theft By Contractor/ Mutual Mistake/ Attorney Fees/ Costs/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  K.B.S. Construction v. McCullough Plumbing
  Docket: 2008AP001867 12-23-09
  

  BRIDGE, J. This case involves a contract dispute between KBS Construction, Inc., a general contractor, and McCullough Plumbing, Inc. (McCullough), a subcontractor which KBS hired to design and install plumbing fixtures in a condominium construction project. KBS brought suit against McCullough, alleging breach of contract, and McCullough counterclaimed, alleging mutual mistake and theft by contractor. McCullough also sought to recover its attorney fees and litigation costs from KBS. KBS's claims against McCullough were resolved by stipulation during a trial to the court, and the court subsequently ordered judgment in favor of McCullough on its mutual mistake claim. However, the court denied relief on McCullough's theft by contractor claim and further denied its claim for attorney fees and litigation costs. KBS appeals the circuit court's ruling regarding mutual mistake, and McCullough appeals the court's ruling on its theft by contractor claim and its claim for attorney fees and litigation costs. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Appellate Procedure/ Appeals Barred
  
  State v. Burkett
  Docket: 2008AP000663 12-22-09
  State v. Burkett
  Docket: 2008AP000664 12-22-09
  State v. Burkett
  Docket: 2008AP000665 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Andre N. Burkett appeals from a consolidated order summarily denying his postconviction motion. We conclude that Burkett is procedurally barred from raising and renewing issues he should have raised on direct appeal. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Detention/ Pleas/ Searches/ Consent/ Reasonable Suspicion
  
  State v. Pickens
  Docket: 2008AP001514 12-23-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  LUNDSTEN, J. Sameeh Pickens was detained outside a hotel because the police suspected that he and others were involved in illegal drug activity at the hotel. The police obtained incriminating evidence from Pickens and from a hotel room in which Pickens was apparently staying. Pickens moved to suppress this evidence, arguing that his detention was illegal and that the evidence was obtained as a result of the illegal detention. The circuit court disagreed and denied the motion. Pickens entered pleas and was convicted of two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver as party to a crime. On appeal, Pickens challenges the suppression rulings.
• Criminal Law/ Habeas Corpus/ Pleas/ Plea Colloquy/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Plea Withdrawal
  
  State v. McCloud
  Docket: 2008AP002416 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Kevin Ray McCloud appeals from postconviction orders denying his petition and amended motion for habeas corpus relief. The issues are whether McCloud was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the validity of his guilty and no-contest pleas, and the alleged ineffectiveness of his postconviction counsel for failing to previously raise the related plea withdrawal issue. We conclude that McCloud has not shown that the plea colloquy was inadequate, and that the trial court did not err by accepting the parties' stipulation to use the complaint as a factual basis for his pleas; consequently, McCloud has not met the requisites necessary for an evidentiary hearing, also negating any ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Appeal Barred
  
  State v. Brown
  Docket: 2008AP002883 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Harvey Lee Brown appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion. The issues are whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing "to thoroughly examine and present the is[s]ues in his no merit report," and for failing to allege trial counsel's ineffectiveness; Brown additionally contends this court erred when it failed to remand this matter on direct appeal for a Machner hearing to litigate trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness, and for directing appellate counsel to respond to matters that were not in the appellate record. We conclude that most of Brown's allegations are procedurally barred either because they have already been decided on direct appeal, or because they should have been raised on direct appeal; appellate counsel's alleged ineffectiveness in examining and presenting the issues in the no-merit appeal is rejected because this court is obliged to independently review the record to search for every issue of arguable merit incident to the no-merit procedure, and we are empowered to extend the deadline of WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32(1)(f) (2005-06). Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Sentencing/ Repeat Offender/ Procedure/ Statutes
  
  State v. Peters
  Docket: 2009AP000396 12-23-09
  State v. Peters
  Docket: 2009AP000397 12-23-09
  

  PER CURIAM. George Peters appeals an order denying his WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2007-08) motion for postconviction relief. He was convicted in 1991 on two counts of armed robbery and two counts of felon in possession of a firearm, as a repeat offender on all counts. His rights to seek postconviction relief under WIS. STAT. RULE 809.30 were exhausted in 1995 after an appeal to this court and a petition to the supreme court. He contended in his § 974.06 motion that he received ineffective assistance from postconviction counsel in his RULE 809.30 proceeding because counsel failed to raise various meritorious issues concerning the circuit court proceeding and his representation by trial counsel during that proceeding. He contends on appeal that the trial court erred by denying the motion without a hearing. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Motor Vehicle Law/ Constitutional Law-Double Jeopardy/ Sentencing/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ OWI/ Multiplicitous Charges
  
  State v. Spangler
  Docket: 2008AP002412 12-23-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Mark Spangler appeals a judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Spangler was convicted of three counts of injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle, and three counts of hit and run ­ great bodily harm. Spangler argues the convictions arising from two counts of hit and run violate double jeopardy because the three victims were all passengers in the same vehicle. Spangler also argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion. We reject Spangler's arguments and affirm.
• Criminal Law/ New Trial/ Plea Withdrawal/ Warrants/ Self Defense/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Appeals/ Appeal Barred/ Waiver
  
  State v. Wilks
  Docket: 2008AP002874 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Eugene D. Wilks appeals from a postconviction order summarily denying his motion for a new trial. We conclude that our decision on direct appeal, in which we determined that there was no arguable merit to pursue plea withdrawal, precludes our consideration of the issues Wilks now raises about plea withdrawal; the alleged defects in the arrest warrant and his claim of self-defense have already been decided. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ New Trial/ Procedure/ Stipulations/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Right To Confront
  
  State v. Scheeler
  Docket: 2008AP002724 12-23-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Daniel Scheeler appeals from a judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Plea Withdrawal/ Knowingly, Voluntarily & Intelligently/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
  
  State v. Woods
  Docket: 2009AP000532 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Stephen Woods appeals from a judgment of conviction for drug-related offenses and from a postconviction order denying his motion for plea withdrawal. The issue is whether Woods is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because he did not knowingly plead guilty in that he did not intend to deliver the cocaine he possessed, or because his trial counsel failed to fully advise him that possessing the quantity of cocaine he possessed did not necessarily compel the inference that he intended delivery. We conclude that Woods has not clearly and convincingly shown that he did not knowingly plead to the intent-to-deliver aspect of the offense, and that trial counsel's advice on why Woods would likely be found guilty of intent-to-deliver, and her failure to disabuse him of his implicit notion of Illinois law on that aspect of the offense did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Pleas/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Evidence/ Plea Withdrawal/ Right To Speedy Trial
  
  State v. Counts
  Docket: 2009AP000495 12-22-09
  

  FINE, J. William F. Counts appeals a judgment entered after he pled no contest to two counts of armed robbery, party to a crime, see WIS. STAT. §§ 943.32(2) and 939.05. His plea was entered under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), which says that it is okay for a defendant to accept conviction even though he or she protests innocence, id., 400 U.S. at 32­37. He also appeals postconviction orders denying, without holding a hearing, Counts's requests to withdraw his plea. Counts argues he should be allowed to withdraw his pleas because his lawyer gave him ineffective representation by: (1) not filing a timely notice of alibi; and (2) not seeking dismissal of the charges against him because of an alleged violation of his right to a speedy trial. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Pleas/ Plea Withdrawal/ Knowingly, Voluntarily & Intelligently/ Statutes
  
  State v. Smith
  Docket: 2008AP001609 12-23-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Thomas Smith appeals a judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Pleas/ Plea Withdrawal/ Right To Counsel/ Indigent Defendant/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Bandy
  Docket: 2009AP001374 12-23-09
  

  BROWN, C.J. Stephanie Bandy appeals from an order denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea on grounds that her waiver of counsel was improper. Bandy argues that the Green Lake County Circuit Court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied her petition for appointment of counsel without applying the federal poverty guidelines. State v. Nieves-Gonzalez, 2001 WI App 90, ¶8, 242 Wis. 2d 782, 625 N.W.2d 913, held that a court must explain why it has found that an individual can afford counsel when the individual's income is well below the federal guidelines. Bandy's petition for court appointment and her declarations during her postconviction hearing showed that her income fell at least $11,550 below the federal poverty guidelines. The circuit court did not apply the federal guidelines to Bandy's income nor explain how it found that Bandy could afford counsel. We reverse.
• Criminal Law/ Probation Revocation/ Procedure/ Evidence/ Administrative Law Judge/ Constitutional Law-Due Process
  
  Kotecki v. Schwarz
  Docket: 2008AP002963 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Steven Kotecki appeals from an order affirming the Administrator of the Division of Hearings & Appeals ("Division") order affirming the revocation decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") revoking Kotecki's probation. The issues are whether Kotecki was denied due process of law because his witnesses were precluded from testifying, and whether there was substantial evidence supporting the violation resulting in Kotecki's revocation. We conclude that the ALJ's refusal to allow testimony from Kotecki's witnesses who supported alibis for alleged violations that were dismissed, was reasonable and thus not a denial of Kotecki's due process rights, and that the violation found by the ALJ was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Probation Revocation/ Sentencing/ Procedure/ Jurisdiction
  
  State v. Harris
  Docket: 2009AP000250 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Marquel A. Harris appeals from an order denying his motion to modify a sentence reconfining him after revocation of his extended supervision. He argues that the circuit court did not have authority to reconfine him because his probation had been improperly revoked several years earlier. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Reconfinement Sentencing/ Sentencing Modification/ New Factors/ Constitutional Law/ Statutes
  
  State v. Hoerig
  Docket: 2008AP002396 12-22-09
  

  KESSLER, J. Michael B. Hoerig appeals pro se from an order denying his pro se motion to modify his reconfinement sentence. We affirm because: (1) Hoerig has not identified "new factors" that would justify sentence modification; and (2) Hoerig's motion, even construed as brought under WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2007-08), does not establish a violation of his constitutional right to marry. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Revocation Of Supervision/ Parole/ Administrative Law Judge Bias/ Sentencing/ Defendant’s Competency/ Constitutional Law-Due Process
  
  Walker v. Schwarz
  Docket: 2008AP002675 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Clayborn L. Walker appeals from an order affirming the revocation of his extended supervision and parole. The issues are: (1) whether Walker's due process rights were violated when the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("Judge") was allegedly predicated on her personal beliefs as opposed to an impartial assessment of the alternatives to revocation; (2) whether the Judge acted contrary to law by ignoring the existence of an alternative to revocation and instead reconfining Walker; and (3) whether State ex rel. Lyons v. Health and Social Services Department, 105 Wis. 2d 146, 312 N.W.2d 868 (Ct. App. 1981), is wrong as a matter of law. We conclude that: (1) the Judge did not prejudge Walker's case and ignore her obligation to impartially evaluate the available alternatives to revocation; (2) the Judge's disagreement with Walker's assessment of his proposed alternative to revocation does not preclude her assessment and rejection of that proposed alternative; and (3) we cannot overrule Lyons, although Walker has preserved the issue for supreme court review. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing Credit/ Constitutional Law-Equal Protection/ Constitutional Law-Due Process/ Waiver Of Issues
  
  State v. Gorak
  Docket: 2008AP002399 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Gregory Sean Gorak appeals from an order denying his motion to reconsider an order denying his motion for sentence credit. The issues are whether Gorak was entitled to sentence credit on the six-year sentence (imposed for his possession of a Molotov cocktail), whether that sentence was imposed illegally, and whether the trial court violated Gorak's rights to equal protection and due process by denying him the sentence credit he seeks. We conclude that Gorak is not entitled to sentence credit on the six-year sentence because it was imposed consecutively to a 118-month federal sentence for which he is entitled to that same credit; that sentence was not imposed illegally, and his constitutional claims that are dependent on his sentence credit issue that we now reject also necessarily fail. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ DNA Surcharge/ Sentencing Modification/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Klinkner
  Docket: 2008AP002271 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Joseph P. Klinkner appeals pro se from a judgment of conviction for possessing cocaine with intent to deliver, and from a postconviction order denying his motion to quash the DNA surcharge imposed as a condition of his sentence. The issue is whether the trial court's alleged failure to exercise its discretion when it imposed a DNA surcharge, or this court's recent decision in State v. Cherry, 2008 WI App 80, 312 Wis. 2d 203, 752 N.W.2d 393, entitle Klinkner to sentence modification. We conclude that the trial court's previous order denying Klinkner's challenge to the DNA surcharge decided the matter, and that Cherry does not constitute a new factor to compel reconsideration of that previous order or modification of the judgment. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Ramirez
  Docket: 2009AP000975 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Adan Javier Ramirez appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon his guilty plea to the charge of possession with intent to deliver more than 1000 but less than 2500 grams of marijuana. See WIS. STAT. §§ 961.01(14), 961.14(4)(t), 961.41(1m)(h)3. (2003-04). He also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion. The only issue is whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion by rejecting probation and imposing a five-year term of imprisonment. We reject Ramirez's arguments and affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ Sentencing Modification/ New Factor/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ Pleas
  
  State v. Sallis
  Docket: 2009AP000011 12-22-09
  State v. Sallis
  Docket: 2009AP000012 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Dedrick B. Sallis appeals from two judgments of conviction for two counts of robbery and two counts of assault by a prisoner, and from orders denying his related motions for sentence modification and reconsideration. The issues are whether sentence modification is warranted for the trial court's alleged failures to consider Sallis's extensive mental health problems, and to order a presentence investigation report. We conclude that, insofar as the trial court did not consider every aspect of Sallis's mental health problems, Sallis has not clearly and convincingly demonstrated how any of the material not considered constituted a new sentencing factor, and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in proceeding to sentencing as requested immediately after Sallis entered his guilty pleas. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ Sentencing Modification/ New Factors
  
  State v. Wilson
  Docket: 2008AP002700 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Eugene L. Wilson appeals from an order denying his motion for sentence modification. The issues are whether a remand is warranted to require the trial court to explicitly apply the U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 5K1.1 factors ("§ 5K1.1 factors") to Wilson's post-sentencing cooperation to warrant modification of his sentence rather than relying "only" on the offense for which Wilson was convicted, and whether Wilson was denied equal protection of the law because the prosecutor did not adequately advocate for sentence modification on Wilson's behalf. We conclude that the trial court's comments at the modification hearing demonstrate consideration of the § 5K1.1 factors, and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in explaining why Wilson's post-sentencing cooperation did not overcome the severity and violence of the felony murder for which he was convicted to warrant sentence modification; we further conclude that there was no denial of equal protection as a result of the prosecutor's (in)action. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ Statutes/ Enhancer Penalty/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Salazar
  Docket: 2008AP003111 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Javier Salazar appeals from an order summarily denying a motion to vacate his sentence. The issue is whether the trial court imposed an illegal sentence by misconstruing the felony murder statute as a penalty enhancer rather than as a stand-alone unclassified crime. We conclude that, on direct appeal, we decided that there was no arguable merit to challenge the trial court's imposition of the maximum sentence for the felony murder that arose from an armed robbery for which Salazar was convicted; we will not decide that same issue again. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Statutes/ Defendant’s Competency/ Defense
  
  State v. Mosay
  Docket: 2008AP002909 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Clint Mosay appeals a judgment of conviction for first-degree reckless homicide in violation of WIS. STAT. § 940.02(1) (2003-2004). He claims the circuit court erred when it concluded he failed to substantiate his WIS. STAT. § 971.15 defense because his psychosis was caused by voluntary substance abuse. We conclude the circuit court properly rejected Mosay's § 971.15 defense and affirm his conviction.
• Criminal Law/ Traffic Stops/ Motor Vehicle Law/ Evidence/ Reasonable Suspicion
  
  State v. Conaway
  Docket: 2008AP001815 12-23-09
  Recommended for Publication
  State v. Griffin
  Docket: 2008AP001816 12-23-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  LUNDSTEN, J. A police officer stopped a car because of a suspected window tint violation. The stop resulted in the discovery of heroin and drug paraphernalia. The occupants of the car, Phillip Conaway and Craig Griffin, moved to suppress the drug evidence, asserting that the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion that the rear window failed to meet the applicable light-pass-through standard in the administrative code. The circuit court agreed and suppressed the evidence. The State appeals, arguing that the officer's suppression hearing testimony shows that he reasonably suspected a window tint violation. We affirm the circuit court's order granting the suppression motion.
• Family Law/ Divorce/ Support/ Employment Law
  
  Young v. Young
  Docket: 2008AP001518 12-23-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Patrice Young appeals a postjudgment order in a divorce case relating to family support. We reverse.
• Foreclosure/ Land Contract/ Property/ Interest/ Redemption/ Statutes/ Consumer Credit
  
  Seidling v. Roedl
  Docket: 2009AP000107 12-22-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Bernard Seidling appeals a judgment of foreclosure on a land contract that set Paul and Verna Roedl's redemption price at $10,540.60. He argues that, under the terms of the land contract, the redemption price should have included interest at 19.99% from the date the contract was executed until it is fully paid. He also argues that the contract called for deposition transcript fees and title commitment fees to be added to the redemption amount. We conclude the trial court properly disallowed the requested interest payments because they violate the Consumer Act. However, Seidling was entitled to litigation expenses and title commitment fees. We remand the matter for the trial court to amend the judgment to add the transcript fees and title commitment fee to the redemption price and set a deadline for the Roedls to make the additional payment.
• Guardianship/ Right To Counsel/ Orders/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation/ Statutes
  
  Jennifer M. v. Mauer
  Docket: 2008AP001985 12-22-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  BRUNNER, J. Jennifer M. appeals from a non-final order requiring her to meet with her guardian ad litem outside the presence of her counsel. The sole issue raised by this case is whether a circuit court has authority to order a represented adult ward to submit to an interview with her guardian ad litem, outside the presence of her counsel and over her attorney's objection, where the order also requires the guardian ad litem to report the content of the interview to the circuit court. We reverse because the circuit court lacks this authority.
• Insurance/ Summary Judgment/ Underinsured Motorist/ Damages/ Jurisdiction/ Loss Of Companionship
  
  Estate of Stys v. The Auto Club
  Docket: 2009AP000894 12-22-09
  

  FINE, J. James Kucza, Kenneth Kucza, and Jean C. Stys appeal an order dismissing their claims against The Auto Club Group Insurance Company, contending that the circuit court erred in concluding on summary judgment that they did not have underinsured-motorist coverage under the policy their deceased father, Raymond S. Kucza, had with Auto Club Group Insurance. We affirm.
• Landlord-Tenant/ Attorney Fees/ Costs/ Damages/ Statutes
  
  Boelter v. Tschantz
  Docket: 2009AP001011 12-22-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  HOOVER, P.J. Terri Boelter appeals a judgment, and an order denying her motion for reconsideration, entered after a trial de novo on claims against her landlord. Boelter seeks double damages, costs, attorney fees, punitive damages, and rent abatement due to claimed improper withholdings from her security deposit and a failure to remedy unsafe conditions. We agree, in part, with Boelter's arguments and remand for further fact-finding, the calculation and awarding of costs, attorney fees, and rent abatement, and consideration of punitive damages.
• Landlord-Tenant/ Contracts/ Breach Of Warranty/ Misrepresentation/ Ordinances/ Regulations/ Summary Judgment/ Economic Loss Doctrine/ Damages
  
  Kuehn v. Apex Property Management
  Docket: 2008AP002481 12-23-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Kurt Kuehn appeals an order dismissing his complaint regarding a residential tenancy. We affirm.
• OWI/ Evidence/ Traffic Stops/ Constitutional Law/ Search & Seizure/ Reasonable Suspicion/ Statutes
  
  State v. Roberts
  Docket: 2009AP000990 12-23-09
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, J. Garric Roberts appeals his judgment of conviction for operating under the influence of a controlled substance, third offense. He argues that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence because the stop that led to his arrest violated his constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The issue on this appeal is whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that a traffic violation had occurred in order to justify the stop. We conclude that the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that Roberts' vehicle had a muffler that violated traffic regulations. Consequently, we conclude that the stop was constitutional and that the circuit court's denial of his motion to suppress was proper. We therefore affirm.
• OWI/ Prohibited Alcohol Concentration (PAC)/ Evidence
  
  County of Sauk v. Dolensek
  Docket: 2009AP001163 12-23-09
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, J. Gregory Dolensek appeals a judgment of conviction, entered following a trial to the court, for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol content, first offense. Dolensek asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's finding that he was the operator of the vehicle. We affirm.
• OWI/ Traffic Stops/ Reasonable Suspicion/ Probable Cause To Arrest/ Evidence Suppression Hearing/ Probable Cause To Test
  
  State v. Kissack
  Docket: 2009AP000778 12-23-09
  

  LUNDSTEN, J. Corey Kissack appeals the circuit court's judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, as a second offense. Kissack argues that the police lacked reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in unlawful activity at the time he was initially detained. He also argues that the police lacked probable cause to administer a preliminary breath test (PBT) and probable cause to arrest him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. I reject Kissack's arguments and affirm the judgment.
• Personal Injury/ Motor Vehicle Law/ Insurance/ Negligence/ Summary Judgment/ Employment Law/ Excusable Neglect/ Statutes
  
  Casper v. American International South Insurance
  Docket: 2006AP001229 12-22-09
  Recommended for Publication
  Casper v. National Union Fire Insurance
  Docket: 2006AP002512 12-22-09
  Recommended for Publication
  Casper v. National Union Fire Insurance
  Docket: 2007AP000369 12-22-09
  Recommended for Publication

  BRENNAN, J. This consolidated case arises out of an action commenced following a collision between the Casper family's minivan and a truck driven by Mark Wearing in the course of his employment. There are three separate appeals pending before us: (1) the Casper family's appeal of the circuit court's order denying its motion for default judgment and granting National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, P.A.'s ("National Union") motion for summary judgment; (2) Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. ("Ryder") and Old Republic Insurance Company's ("ORIC") appeal of the circuit court's denial of their motion for summary judgment; and (3) Jeffrey Wenham's appeal of the circuit court's order reinstating the Casper family's negligence claim against him as an individual. For the reasons which follow, we affirm the circuit court's first and third orders above and reverse the second.
• Probate/ Statutes/ Stipulations/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ Marital Property/ Valuation/ Contracts/ Mistake/ Right Of First Refusal/ Public Policy
  
  Sanders v. Estate of Sanders
  Docket: 2006AP000424 12-23-09
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, J. This is a probate case. Diana G. Sanders, the wife of the deceased, David R. Sanders, challenges several non-final orders by the circuit court granting relief to the Estate of David R. Sanders and one of the beneficiaries, Derek Sanders, from a stipulation governing the disposition of the family farm. According to the terms of the stipulation, Diana was granted the right of first refusal to purchase the Estate's share of the farm at fifty percent of the fair market value to be established by the highest "valid" offer to purchase made within the first six months from the date of the stipulation. The dispute in this case centers on how the fair market value was established, and the price Diana was ultimately required to pay for the Estate's share of the farm. At issue is whether the circuit court properly exercised its discretion under WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(a) and (h) (2007-08) in granting relief to the Estate and Derek Sanders from the terms of the challenged stipulation. We conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion under the statute and therefore affirm.
• Property/ Adverse Possession/ Deeds/ Evidence/ Statutes
  
  Boyles v. Hunter
  Docket: 2008AP002536 12-23-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Mary Boyles appeals from a judgment declaring that disputed property is owned by her neighbors, Gerald and Darlene Hunter. We agree with the circuit court and affirm this decision. However, we reverse the circuit court's award of costs to the Hunters and remand for further proceedings relating to costs.
• Summary Judgment/ Agency Agreement/ Contracts/ Issue Preclusion
  
  Marks v. American Family
  Docket: 2008AP002232 12-23-09
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, J. Charles Marks appeals an order granting American Family Mutual Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment and denying his cross-motion for summary judgment in this action arising from American Family's termination of his agency agreement. Marks contends that American Family violated the terms of the agency agreement by terminating the agreement without first providing him with notice of the alleged undesirable performance, and the opportunity to correct the undesirable performance. Because we conclude, under the agency agreement's terms, that Marks' undisputed conduct constituted undesirable performance involving dishonesty justifying American Family's termination of the agreement without notice, we affirm.
• Writs/ Evidence/ Housing Authority/ Hearsay/ Default Judgment
  
  Williams v. City of Milwaukee
  Docket: 2009AP000435 12-22-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  BRENNAN, J. Michelle Williams filed a writ of certiorari in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, arguing that the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee's denial of her application for rent assistance was not based on sufficient evidence. The Housing Authority denied Williams's application because she had been found guilty, upon default judgment following a no contest plea, to municipal citations for disorderly conduct, and assault and battery. The circuit court granted Williams's writ of certiorari on the grounds that the Housing Authority based its decision solely on uncorroborated hearsay. We agree with the circuit court and affirm.