On Point blog, page 11 of 12
Appellate Procedure: Raising Claim Preclusion, § 802.06(8)(b)
State ex rel Kim J. Barksdale v. Litscher, 2004 WI App 130
Issue/Holding:
¶12. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the only reasonable reading of Wis. Stat. § 802.06, as applied to certiorari proceedings, is that a party who has unsuccessfully moved to dismiss on other grounds may still seek dismissal grounded on claim preclusion at any time before the court has considered the merits of the petitioner’s claims.
Waiver of Argument: Failure to Develop Argument on Appeal
State v. John Norman, 2003 WI 72, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Norman: Angela Kachelski
Issue/Holding: Norman’s failure on appeal to develop an argument analytically necessary to the issue he raises waives his right to have that issue reviewed. ¶64.
Briefs – Citing Unnpublished Opinions
State v. John S. Cooper, 2003 WI App 227, PFR filed 11/14/03
For Cooper: John A. Birdsall
Issue/Holding:
¶23. As a final matter, this court notes with dismay the multiple citations to unpublished opinions contained in Cooper’s appellate brief. The Rules of Appellate Procedure proscribe as follows:
Unpublished opinions not cited. An unpublished opinion is of no precedential value and for this reason may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority,
Briefs – Content – “Overly Tendentious” Tone, Lack of Civility
U.S. Bank National v. City of Milwaukee, 2003 WI App 220
Issue/Holding: fn. 4:
The brief submitted to us by the City of Milwaukee is overly tendentious and lacks the civility that lawyers owe to both their adversaries and to the courts. The following has no place in a brief before any court in this state: accusing an opposing party of seeking “political anarchy” … of “creating a `sideshow,’”
Briefs – Reply Brief Failure to Address Argument
State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App 98
For Chu: Andrew Shaw, Rex R. Anderegg
Issue/Holding:
¶41. In his reply brief, Chu offers no response to the State’s argument concerning information about Wales. Unrefuted arguments are deemed admitted. See Charolais Breeding Ranches v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1979). Accordingly, we reject his argument without further discussion
Briefs – Citing Unpublished Opinion
State ex rel. Michael J. Gendrich v. Litscher, 2001 WI App 163
Issue: Whether an unpublished decision may be cited for its “persuasive” value.
Holding: ¶7 n. 6:
We acknowledge that the cited order from the Seventh Circuit is an ‘unpublished opinion.’ However, the Seventh Circuit’s rule only prohibits citation of an ‘unpublished opinion’ as precedent in any federal court in that circuit. 7th Cir.
Presentation & Preservation of Argument – Citing Relevant Authority
State v. Debra Noble, 2001 WI App 145, reversed, other grounds, State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64For Noble: Jeff P. Brinckman
Issue: Whether failure to cite relevant authority in support of appellate argument establishes waiver.
Holding:
¶11 … But Noble cites no authority requiring a tape recording, a transcript, or a signed statement to show the falsity of a statement.
Briefs – Content – “Vituperative Tone”
Mogged v. Mogged, 2000 WI App 39, 233 Wis. 2d 90, 607 N.W.2d 662
Issue/Holding: Brief adopting “vituperative tone” and making misleading, unsupported arguments violates Rules of Professional Conduct and is stricken. ¶¶21-24. (Note that the court cites 7th Circuit caselaw, ¶22, suggesting that decisions from that body are very pertinent.)
Appellate briefs containing personal attacks sufficiently inflammatory subject the author to the range of sanctions avaialble under the code of professional responsibility,
Presentation & Preservation of Argument – Footnotes
State v. Miguel Angel Santana-Lopez, 2000 WI App 122, 237 Wis.2d 332, 613 N.W.2d 918
For Santana-Lopez: Rex Anderegg
Issue/Holding: “We do not consider an argument mentioned only in a footnote to be adequately raised or preserved for appellate review,” ¶6 n.4.
Interesting that the holding itself happens to be contained in a footnote.
Argument – Affirmance of Lower Court on Alternative Theory
State v. Daniel G. Scheidell, 230 Wis.2d 189, 601 N.W.2d 284 (1999), on reconsideration of State v. Scheidell, 227 Wis.2d 285, 595 N.W.2d 661 (1999).
For Scheidell: Mitchell E. Cooper, SPD, Madison
Holding: Having previously refused to entertain Scheidell’s alternative argument in support of the decision being appealed, 227 Wis. 2d at 288 n. 1, the supreme court on reconsideration, recognizes “that the appellee may, without taking a cross-appeal,