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