 |
|
|
Vol. 73, No. 6, June 2000 |
 Previous
Page
Supreme Court Digest
by Prof. Daniel D. Blinka & Prof. Thomas
J. Hammer
| Criminal Procedure
|
| Municipal Law | Torts |
Municipal Law
Police Officers - Disciplinary Actions - Newly
Promoted Officer Serving Term of Probation - Demotion for
Disciplinary Reasons - Right to a "Just Cause"
Hearing
Antisdel v. Oak Creek Police
and Fire Commission, 2000 WI 35 (filed 2 May 2000)
The appellant is a police officer employed by the city of
Oak Creek. He was promoted to the rank of sergeant and notified
at the time of promotion that, upon completion of a one-year
probationary period in the promoted rank, he would receive a
permanent appointment as a sergeant. Prior to completion of the
probation period, the police chief notified the appellant that
he had not passed his probation because of unprofessional conduct
that had occurred prior to the promotion. The chief advised him
that he was being returned to his former position as a police
officer.
The officer requested a "just cause" hearing before
the local police and fire commission. The commission denied his
request, apparently concluding that probationary employees are
not entitled to the "just cause" procedure established
under Wis. Stat. section
62.13(5)(em). With this decision the circuit court agreed;
however, the court of appeals reversed.
In a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice Abrahamson,
the supreme court affirmed the court of appeals. The court concluded
that the appellant was reduced in rank based on a disciplinary
charge made by the police chief and that he was therefore entitled
to a "just cause" hearing before the police and fire
commission.
The court specifically indicated that it did not need to and
therefore did not decide whether it would reach the same decision
if the probationary sergeant had been reduced in rank to a police
officer because he failed to meet the level of performance demanded
by his superiors or because of some other nondisciplinary reason.
Torts
Medical Malpractice - Noneconomic Damages Caps
Guzman v. St. Francis Hospital,
2000 WI 34 (filed 2 May 2000)
This appeal concerned the constitutionality of the $350,000
non-economic damages caps in medical malpractice cases, as provided
by section
655.017 and section
893.55(4) of the Wisconsin Statutes. The court's per
curiam order indicated that it was equally divided on the issue
(Justice Prosser did not participate). The court vacated the
order granting bypass and remanded the matter for decision to
the court of appeals.
Prof. Daniel D. Blinka and Prof. Thomas
J. Hammer invite comments and questions about the digests. They
can be reached at the Marquette University Law School, 1103 W.
Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53233, (414) 288-7090.
|
