On Point

Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Insurance Company, 2012 WI 26; case activity

¶32  … The word “may” is ordinarily used to grant permission or to indicate possibility.  See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1112 (3d ed. 1992).  Accordingly, when interpreting a statute, we generally construe the word “may” as permissive.  Hitchcock v. Hitchcock, 78 Wis. 2d 214, 220, 254 N.W.2d 230 (1977); 

Admiral Insurance Company v. Paper Converting Machine Co., 2012 WI 30; case activity

¶3   If we conclude that there is any ambiguity in an order or judgment about whether it disposes of the entire matter in litigation as to one or more of the parties, we will construe the ambiguity so as to preserve the right to appeal. …

…

¶26  We recently addressed what it means for a judgment or order to be final in Wambolt v.

court of appeals certification request; case activity

Voter ID Law 

(From the Certification:)

There are many issues in this case, but this certification focuses on the following questions:  (1) What level of judicial scrutiny should be employed in reviewing the plaintiffs’ challenge to the Act?  (2) Does the Wisconsin Constitution provide greater protection to voting rights than is guaranteed under the United States Constitution?  

court of appeals certification request; case activity

Voter ID Law 

(From the Certification:)

This appeal challenges a circuit court order that permanently enjoined implementation of those portions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 requiring Wisconsin electors to display government-authorized photo identification either at the polling place or to election officials by the Friday following an election.  The injunction was based upon the circuit court’s declaratory judgment that Act 23 violates article III,

court of appeals publication orders, 3/28/12

On Point posts from this list:

2012 WI App 33 State v. Sean T. Powell

2012 WI App 38 State v. Anthony C. Boyden

2012 WI App 39 State v. Terrence T. Boyd

State v. Michael E. Mings, 2011AP2467-CR, District 2, 3/28/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Mings: Daniel P. Fay, Erin Fay; case activity

¶12      Hallmark testified that he has completed many traffic stops in his three years as a police officer and that “most innocent public, motoring traffic, don’t usually pass … at that slow of speeds, especially when the lane is that wide and clear of traffic.”  Hallmark explained that the vehicle conducting the initial traffic stop had pulled into a driveway and that Hallmark’s vehicle was in the parking lane on Tenny Avenue. 

State v. Christopher J. Anderson, 2009AP3053-CR, District 1, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity; prior history: 2008AP504-CR

Anderson’s prior appeal established that “the trial court erred when it denied his request for an in camera review of [police] personnel files because he had both a constitutional and statutory right to any exculpatory or impeachment evidence in the files,”

State v. Dawn M. Fletcher, 2011AP1356-CR, District 3, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Fletcher: Earl J. Luaders, III; case activity

The court upholds search of a car following a drug dog alert which occurred while an officer was still processing a warning ticket for a conceded traffic violation:

¶7        On appeal, Fletcher concedes the initial stop was lawful.  She argues the dog sniff was illegal because the officer had no reasonable suspicion to detain the occupants of the vehicle to request a dog sniff.  

State v. Corrine J., 2011AP1916 / State v. Dalvin C., Sr., 2011AP1882, District 1, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Corrine J.: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Dalvin C.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

Trial counsel’s failure to object to the guardian ad litem’s closing argument wasn’t prejudicial, given the strength of the case for terminating parental rights. (The argument, merits of which the court doesn’t reach,

State v. Daniel M. Buesgens, No. 2011AP2241-CR, District 3, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Buesgens: Eric John Nelson; case activity

Buesgens, told he was “absolutely free to go” after a concededly proper traffic stop, wasn’t then “reseized” when the officer asked questions related to whether he had been drinking.

¶15      Similar to Williams, a reasonable person in Buesgens’ position would have felt free to decline Mork’s questions and terminate the encounter.