On Point blog, page 77 of 117
Appellate Procedure – Finality and Appealability; § 806.07 Motion to Vacate
Evelyn Werner v. Kenneth Hendree, 2011 WI 10, reversing 2009 WI App 103; case activity
Appellate Procedure – Finality and Appealability
A circuit court order rejecting state indemnification of an employee being sued was non-final and thus absorbed in the final judgment later entered as to liability and damages.
¶62 An appeal may be taken as a matter of right only from a final judgment or a final order.
Briefing – Nomenclature
Donna J. Murr v. St. Croix County Board of Adjustment, 2008AP2728, District 3, 2/15/11
court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); case activity
The Board’s response brief repeatedly refers to Murr as plaintiff. We remind counsel that references should be to names, not party designations. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(i).
Surpassingly minor point? Sure –
Counsel Sanctions: Violation of No-Cite Rule
Shirley Anderson v. Northwood School District, 2011 WI App 31; case activity
Northwood cites a circuit court decision from another case as persuasive authority, correctly noting that such a citation does not violate WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3), which prohibits citing unpublished appellate cases decided before July 1, 2009. However, Northwood then emphasizes we affirmed the circuit court, provides citation to the 2005 unpublished appellate court decision,
Sanctions
City of Shawano v. Darlene F. Sense, 2010AP2193-FT, District 3, 2/8/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity; Memo Br.; Memo Resp.; Memo Reply
¶10 As a final matter, we address certain deficiencies in Sense’s appellate brief. First, Sense’s repeated references to “appellant” and “respondent” throughout her brief violate WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(i), which requires reference to the parties by name,
Harmless Error; Hearsay – Medical Treatment/Diagnosis
State v. Jimmie Lee Higgins, 2010AP861-CR, District 1, 2/1/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Higgins: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity; Higgins BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Any error with respect to exclusion of the victim’s pretrial statement to the police in one instance, and admissibility of her statements to a nurse, would be harmless.
Ineffective Assistance Claim – Necessity of Motion; Entrapment – Child Sex Crime with Computer
State v. Tushar S. Achha, 2009AP1977-CR, District 2, 1/26/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; State Resp.
Ineffective Assistance Claim – Necessity of Motion
Failure to preserve a challenge to trial counsel’s performance via postconviction motion waives the issue on appeal, ¶19.
Entrapment – Child Sex Crime with Computer
Challenge to sufficiency of evidence to negate entrapment defense rejected,
Serial Litigation Bar: Application to Motion for Postconviction Discovery
State v. Terry L. Kletzien, Jr., 2011 WI App 22; for Kletzien: James A. Rebholz; case activity; Kletzien BiC; State Resp.; Reply
In a prior appeal, Kletzien unsuccessfully challenged denial of postconviction discovery, 2008 WI App 182. (See, e.g., State v. O’Brien, 223 Wis. 2d 303,
Guilty Plea Colloquy – Plea Questionnaire; Plea Bargain – Breach: Waiver Doctrine
State v. Henry Edward Reed, Jr., 2009AP3149-CR, District 1, 1/11/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Reed: Basil M. Loeb; case activity; Reed BiC; State Resp.
Guilty Plea Colloquy – Plea Questionnaire
Reed’s claim that he didn’t understand the significance of read-in offenses is defeated by their coverage in the plea questionnaire, and the plea court’s eliciting “that Reed had not only read the form,
Judicial Estoppel
State v. Basil E. Ryan, Jr., 2011 WI App 21; case activity; Ryan BiC; State Resp.; Reply
¶26 “‘Judicial estoppel is a doctrine that is aimed at preventing a party from manipulating the judiciary as an institution by asserting a position in a legal proceeding and then [later] taking an inconsistent position.’” State v. White,
Sanctions – Appellate Procedure
Thomas Vitrano v. Milwaukee Police Department, 2010AP1987, District 1, 1/11/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; Resp. Br.
We note with some frustration that neither party included a single citation to the record in their respective briefs in violation of Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d). Record cites are helpful to the court and are required even when the record is not voluminous.