On Point blog, page 4 of 7
Binding Authority: Overruled Court of Appeals Decision
Adam Martine v. Quentin J. Williams, 2011 WI App 68 (recommended for publication); case activity
¶13 Prior to last year, this court applied a general rule regarding court of appeals’ cases reversed by the supreme court that “holdings not specifically reversed on appeal retain precedential value.” Blum v. 1st Auto & Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WI 78, ¶44, 326 Wis. 2d 729, 786 N.W.2d 78 (citation omitted).
Effect, Overruled Decision
Richardson v. Henderson, 2010AP1765, District 2, 3/9/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity
¶7, n.4:
Our supreme court has held that “when the supreme court overrules a court of appeals decision, the court of appeals decision no longer possesses any precedential value, unless this court expressly states otherwise.” Blum v. 1st Auto & Cas. Ins. Co.
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity; Memo Br.; Memo Resp.; Memo Reply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,
Confrontation – Generally – Forfeiture by Wrongdoing – Harmless Error; Other Acts Evidence: Pornography (& Intent to Kill); Consent to Search; Judicial Bias
State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3; prior history: 2007 WI 26; for Jensen: Terry W. Rose, Christopher William Rose, Michael D. Cicchini; case activity; (Jensen BiC not posted); State Resp.; Jensen Reply
Confrontation – Generally
The Confrontation Clause regulates testimonial statements only, such that nontestimonial statements are excludable only under hearsay and other evidence-rule ¶¶22-26,
Jury – Deliberations – Sequestration
State v. Bradley A. Brandsma, 2010AP1429-CR , District 4, 12/23/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brandsma: Anthony J. Jurek; case activity; Brandsma BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Trial courts have “very broad discretion” under § 972.12 to allow a deliberating jury to separate overnight before returning to resume deliberations; court of appeals rejects argument under state and federal constitutions “a circuit court should presume that any separation of a jury renders that jury impartial in light of rapidly changing modes and content of publicly available information,”
Warrantless Blood Draw – Driving under Influence of Drugs
State v. Travis J. Malinowski, 2010AP1084-CR, District 3, 11/30/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Malinowski: Chad A. Lanning; Malinowski BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Exigent-circumstances doctrine supports warrantless blood draw of person arrested for driving under the influence of drugs, no less than under the influence of alcohol, State v. Bohling, 173 Wis.
Binding Authority – Overruled Court of Appeals Decision
Blum v. 1st Auto & Casualty Insurance Company, 2010 WI 78
¶42 We next address whether a court of appeals decision retains any precedential value when it is overruled by this court. We hold that when the supreme court overrules a court of appeals decision, the court of appeals decision no longer possesses any precedential value, unless this court expressly states otherwise.
A less obscure problem than you might think.
County of Milwaukee v. Caleb L. Manske, 2009AP1779, District I, 6/8/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Manske: Jennifer R. Drow; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Traffic Stop – Reasonable Suspicion
¶16 Manske submits that because his driving was in some respects not consistent with an impaired driver, Galipo did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. However, the test for reasonable suspicion is not whether all of the driver’s actions constituted erratic driving.
Brown Co. DHS v. Brenda B., No. 2010AP321, District III, 6/2/10; affirmed 2011 WI 6
court of appeals decision, affirmed 2011 WI 6; for Brenda: Leonard D. Kachinsky
TPR – Plea to Grounds
In taking a plea to TPR grounds, the court need not inform the parent of “sub-dispositions,” i.e., those which “pertain only to the effect on the child, addressing who will have guardianship and custody in the event the parent’s rights are terminated as a primary disposition,”
Zarder v. Acuity, 2010 WI 35
supreme court decision; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Court of Appeals Authority to Declare Dicta
¶57 By concluding that a statement in a supreme court opinion is dictum, the court of appeals necessarily withdraws or modifies language from that opinion, contrary to our directive in Cook. …
¶58 If the court of appeals could dismiss a statement in a prior case from this court as dictum,