For Immediate Release
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Accepts Nine New Cases
Madison, Wis. (July 23) - The Wisconsin Supreme
Court on July 23 voted to grant review in nine new cases. The case
numbers, issue, and county of origin are listed below. Please note that
the statement of the issue is cursory. To read the full record, go to
the Supreme Court Clerkís office, Ste. 215, Tenney Building, 110 E.
Main St., Madison.
Vogel v. Russo v. West Bend
Mutual
97-2192
County of Origin: Ozaukee
Issues: Does diminution in value constitute
"property damage" as that term is defined within the commercial general
liability policy issued by West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. to Limbach
Construction Co.? If diminution in value qualifies as "property damage,"
is such property damage excluded by the "business risks" or work
products exclusions of a commercial general liability policy?
State v. T. Thomas
97-2665-CR
County of Origin: Milwaukee
Issues: Did the defendant stipulate to a factual
basis for the guilty plea? Was there other evidence providing a
sufficient factual basis for the plea? As a matter of law, must a
defendant entering a standard guilty plea (not a formal Alford
plea) admit to a factual basis for the plea or can the factual basis be
provided by other evidence? State v. Brandt, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 594
N.W.2d 0759; State v. Burns, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 594 N.W.2d
0799.
Wis. Label Corp. v. Northbrook
Prop. & Cas.
98-0194
County of Origin: Kewaunee
Issues: Does an improperly placed label on a
package, resulting in a lower price being charged for some of the
products, constitute "physical injury to tangible property" or "loss of
use of tangible property" as those terms are used in the comprehensive
general liability policy? Does an exclusion precluding coverage for
property damage to property which is not physically injured due to a
defect or deficiency in the insuredís work apply here to bar
coverage for the insuredís improper placement of the labels?
C. Mireles v. Labor & Ind.
Review Comm.
98-1607
County of Origin: Racine
Issues: Interpretation of Wis. Stat. §
102.44(6)(b). When an employee returns to work after suffering an
unscheduled injury (the workers compensation statute sets out a
"schedule" of injuries; injuries that are not specified are
"unscheduled"), then subsequently loses that employment because of a
scheduled injury in the job that employee was reassigned to upon
returning to work, can the employee recover permanent total disability
as a result of the combined restrictions from both a scheduled and
unscheduled injury?
State v. S. Stevenson
98-2110-CR
County of Origin: Waukesha
Issues: Is Wis. Stat. § 944.205(2)(a)
subjecting a person who "takes a photograph or makes motion picture,
videotapes or other visual representation or reproduction that
depicts nudity without the knowledge and consent of the person who is
depicted nude" unconstitutionally overbroad? (Certification --
no Court of Appeals opinion issued)
M. Blazekovic v. City of Milw.,
Amer. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
*98-1821-FT
County of Origin: Milwaukee
Issues: Is Endorsement 44, a policy exclusion contained
within the policies of insurance issued by Amer. Family Mutual Ins. Co.
and Amer. Std. Ins. Co. of Wis. to Plaintiff Respondent, valid and
enforceable thereby precluding Plaintiff-Respondent from recovering
uninsured motorist coverage for injuries she sustained as a result of
the accident? Wis. Stat. § 632.32(5)(j). Clark v. American
Family, 218 Wis. 2d 169, 577 N.W.2d 790 (1998).
R. Thorp v. Town of
Lebanon
98-2358
County of Origin: Dodge
Issues: Did the plaintiffs state claims for deprivation of
procedural and substantive due process and equal protection rights when
their property was rezoned, changing the classification from rural
development to agricultural? Penterman v. Wis. Elec. Power Co.,
211 Wis. 2d 458, 565 N.W.2d 521 (1997).
R. Theis v. Midwest Security Ins. Co.
98-2552
County of Origin: Sheboygan
Issues: The rule in Wisconsin is that uninsured motorist (UM)
coverage is available to an insured after a hit-and-run accident only if
there was direct physical contact between the insured and the
hit-and-run vehicle. This case asks whether this rule is to be applied
literally when the insured is injured by a piece of an unknown vehicle.
(Certification -- no Court of Appeals opinion
issued)
State v. M. Longcore
98-2792-CR
County of Origin: Brown
Issues: Is the standard for stopping an automobile
based on observation of a violation reasonable suspicion or probable
cause? State v. Griffin, 183 Wis. 2d 327, 515 N.W.2d 535 (Ct.
App. 1994), State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct.
App. 1991), State v. Richardson, 156 Wis. 2d 128, 456 N.W.2d 830
(1990).
Press Releases