On Point blog, page 2 of 2
Trial court didn’t err in excluding evidence of lab mistakes from years before defendant’s blood sample was tested
Fond du Lac County v. Douglas L. Bethke, 2013AP2297, District 2, 4/30/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it excluded evidence of particular crime lab errors that happened years before Bethke’s blood sample was analyzed.
Exasperated, District 3 penalizes all parties to appeal
Loren H. Laufman v. North Central Power Co., Inc., 2012AP2116, District 3 (per curiam; not eligible for publication or citation).
Normally, On Point would not trouble its readers with a per curiam decision involving insurance coverage issues. This one, however, penalizes parties for violations of Wisconsin’s Rules of Appellate Procedure, so appellate lawyers of all stripes should pay attention. Skipping over the substantive insurance issues,
Briefs – Factual Recitation – Need for Completeness, Accuracy
State v. Ellen T. Straehler, 2008 WI App 14
For Straehler: Daniel P. Fay
Issue/Holding: ¶2 n. 4:
We appreciate the attorney general’s thorough recitation of the facts and draw freely from it. Both the district attorney and the attorney general submitted response briefs and we refer to their position collectively as the State’s. Straehler’s recitation of facts is incomplete, lacks citation to the record and cites to documents outside of the record.
Briefs – Factual Assertions – Need for Accuracy
Arents v. ANR Pipeline Co., 2005 WI App 61
Issue/Holding: ¶5 n. 2:
Wisconsin Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d) and (e) (2001-02) requires the parties to provide in their briefs separate sections for their “statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review” and argument. In their appeal, the Landowners have, inappropriately, interspersed legal argument and “spin” into what should have been an objective recitation of the factual occurrences of this case.