Explore in-depth analysis

On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Standards of Review: Administrative Decision – Certiorari: Motion to Quash

State ex rel. David C. Myers v. Swenson, 2004 WI App 224, PFR filed 11/24/04 For Myers: Christopher T. Sundberg; Bruce D. Huibregtse Issue/Holding: ¶6. A motion to quash a writ of certiorari is akin to a motion to dismiss. Fee v. Board of Review, 2003 WI App 17, ¶7, 259 Wis. 2d 868, 657 N.W.2d 112. […]

Standards of Review: Administrative Decision – Certiorari

State ex rel. Raymond Booker v. Schwarz, 2004 WI App 50 For Booker: John Pray, Legal Assistance Program, UW Law School Issue/Holding: ¶10 We review the decision of the agency, not that of the circuit court. State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz, 211 Wis. 2d 710, 717, 566 N.W.2d 173 (Ct. App. 1997), aff’d, 219 Wis. 2d 615, […]

Binding Authority – Conflicting State and U.S. Supreme Court Cases

State v. Walter Leutenegger, 2004 WI App 127 For Leutenegger: Bill Ginsberg Issue/Holding: “[The court of appeals is] bound by the most recent pronouncements of the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” ¶5, quoting Jones v. Dane County, 195 Wis. 2d 892, 918 n.8, 537 N.W.2d 74 (Ct. App. 1995). And, ¶10, utilizing same quote: “Therefore, we applyRichter because it is the most […]

Binding Authority – Power to Overrule Court of Appeals, Limited to Supreme Court

State v. Miyosha White, 2004 WI App 237, PFR filed 12/1/04 For White: Leonard Kachinsky Issue/Holding: ¶7 Here, however, we must first determine whether interpretation of WIS. STAT.§ 973.01(3g), the ERP statute, is governed by Lehman, a decision of this court interpreting the nearly identical language of WIS. STAT. § 973.01(3m), the CIP statute. If Lehman controls the interpretation of […]

Binding Authority – Dicta: General Principles

State v. William L. Morford, 2004 WI 5, on review of unpublished decision For Morford: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue/Holding: ¶33 n. 4: For discussions of Wisconsin’s views on dictum, see, e.g., State v. Picotte, 2003 WI 42, ¶¶60-61 n.16, 261 Wis. 2d 249, 661 N.W.2d 381 (reviewing two lines of cases on dictum); State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, […]

Binding Authority – Mandate – Defective, Plea-Based Suppression Hearing: Vacate Plea, Notwithstanding Affirmance of Refusal to Suppress

State v. Lucian Agnello II, 2004 WI App 2, (AG’s) PFR filed 1/8/04, on appeal after remand, 2003 WI 44; prior history: State v. Agnello I, 226 Wis.2d 164, 593 N.W.2d 427 (1999) For Agnello: Jerome F. Buting, Pamela Moorshead Issue: Whether the defendant is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea and to have a trial under the supreme […]

Restitution – Special Damages — Attorney’s Fees of Victims to Enforce Contract in Theft by Contractor Case

State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90 For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether attorney fees, incurred by the victims in seeking damages under the contract underlying this theft by contractor case, are subject to restitution. Holding: ¶29. Longmire contends the trial court erred because the “American Rule” requires litigants in […]

Restitution – Special Damages — Expenditures by Victim to Correct Shoddy Work, Theft by Contractor Case

State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90 For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether expenditures by victims to correct shoddy work done by defendant in theft by contractor case may be subject to restitution. Holding: ¶23. We conclude that these costs, incurred by the homeowners and admittedly arising out of […]

Resentencing — Increase in Original Sentence After Grant of Relief

State v. Victor Naydihor, 2004 WI 43, affirming 2002 WI App 272, 258 Wis. 2d 746, 654 N.W.2d 479 For Naydihor: Philip J. Brehm Issue1: Whether an increase in sentence (from 3 to 5 years’ initial confinement), after resentencing before a different judge due to a plea bargain violation, was presumptively vindictive and therefore violated due process. Holding1: Under […]

Resentencing — Modification, Distinguished From

State v. Wallace I. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181 For Stenzel: Martin E. Kohler Issue/Holding: ¶5, n. 2: “Technically, Stenzel is seeking a modification of a sentence imposed by an erroneous exercise of discretion; resentencing is only available if the initial sentence is vacated because it was illegally imposed. State v. Carter, 208 Wis. 2d 142, 146-47, […]

On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].

On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.