Wisconsin Supreme Court

From Judgepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Sitting justices
Shirley Abrahamson
Ann Walsh Bradley
N. Patrick Crooks
David Prosser
Patience Roggensack
Michael Gableman
Annette Ziegler
2008 challengers
Michael Gableman
Former justices
Wisconsin on Judgepedia


The Wisconsin Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in the state of Wisconsin. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over original actions, appeals from lower courts, and regulation or administration of the practice of law in Wisconsin.

Contents

Location

The Wisconsin Supreme Court normally sits in its main hearing room in the East Wing of the Wisconsin State Capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin. Since 1993, the court has also traveled, once or twice a year, to another part of the state to hear several cases as part of its "Justice on Wheels" program. The purpose of this program is to give the people of Wisconsin a better opportunity to understand the operations of the state supreme court and the court system.

Functions

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has three primary functions.

Case Deciding Function

A primary function of the Supreme Court is to ensure independent, open, fair and efficient resolution of disputes in accordance with the federal and state constitutions and laws.

Cases come to the Supreme Court in a number of ways:

  • A party who has lost a case in the Wisconsin Courts of Appeal may file a petition for review;
  • Any party may ask the Supreme Court to bypass the Court of Appeals and take a case;
  • The Court of Appeals may ask the Supreme Court to take a case by certification; or
  • A party may begin a case of statewide significance in the Supreme Court (original actions).

When the Court agrees to decide a case, it receives briefs from all sides and schedules oral argument. The Court publishes its decision in virtually every case it agrees to decide.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has established and published Internal Operating Procedures (included in Wisconsin Supreme Court rules) describing its procedures for deciding cases.[1]

Administrative Function

Beyond deciding cases, the Supreme Court administers the entire Wisconsin Court System. In this capacity, the Court works to ensure that the court system operates fairly and efficiently. The Court's administrative role has many facets including the following:[2]

Budgeting During the biennial budget process the Supreme Court, assisted by staff, prepares a judicial branch budget request which then becomes part of the governor's budget proposal. As the budget moves through the Legislature, the Court meets frequently to refine priorities. The Court invites comments from all judges and staff throughout the budget process.

Long-range planning In 1990, the Wisconsin Supreme Court established the Planning and Policy Advisory Committee (PPAC) to help chart a course for the future of the courts. PPAC advises the Court and the Director of State Courts office on planning initiatives, the administrative structure of the court system and the expeditious handling of judicial matters. Chaired by the chief justice, PPAC functions as the court system's long-range planning committee.

Information technology strategies The Supreme Court is committed to fostering the use of automation to improve the operation of the courts. Under the court system's in-house technology service, known as the Consolidated Court Automation Programs (CCAP), circuit court software for management of cases, juries and finances have been streamlined, making Wisconsin courts some of the most fully automated in the country. The Court will continue to explore new technologies, including videoconferencing, which have the potential to make court procedures more efficient and effective.

Rules of pleading and practice As part of its administrative function, the Supreme Court adopts rules under Wis. Stat. § 751.12 to regulate pleading, practice and procedure in judicial proceedings in all Wisconsin courts. Rules adopted under this authority simplify proceedings and promote the speedy and just resolution of disputes.

Security and facilities management In 1995, the Supreme Court established security, facilities and staffing standards for the circuit courts. Since then the Court has been monitoring the circuit courts' progress toward implementation of those standards.

Juror use and management In July 1997, following adoption of a rule by the Supreme Court, Wisconsin circuit courts began using the American Bar Association Standards Relating to Juror Use and Management . The standards are designed to improve the jury system for both jurors and court personnel by, for example, shortening terms of jury service. An evaluation of the new system will be conducted after its first year of operation.

Court-connected alternative dispute resolution Resolving disputes through processes other than litigation may be less costly and may improve consumer satisfaction with the justice system. The Supreme Court has adopted a rule authorizing Wisconsin circuit courts to use certain means of "court-connected" alternative dispute resolution - for example, mediation of small claims disputes by trained volunteers-in appropriate cases. The Court is conducting a review and evaluation of court-connected techniques for alternative dispute resolution.

Regulatory Function

Another important function of the Supreme Court is to regulate the legal profession in Wisconsin. The Court has established a Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) which oversees bar admissions and monitors lawyers' compliance with Wisconsin's continuing legal education requirements. The Court also sets Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys and has established the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), which investigates and prosecutes grievances involving attorney misconduct or medical incapacity.

The Supreme Court also regulates the Wisconsin judiciary. Through the Office of Judicial Education, the Court administers the requirement that judges attend educational programs. The state Constitution also gives the Court authority to discipline judges according to procedures established by the Legislature.

In 1996, the Court adopted a comprehensive revision of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which governs judges' conduct. The Court has appointed a Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee to give informal advice to judges and render formal advisory opinions on whether a contemplated action would be appropriate. The Court has also appointed a blue ribbon Commission on Judicial Elections and Ethics to propose rules concerning the political and campaign activities of judges and candidates for judicial office.[3]

Justices

The court is composed of seven justices who are elected in state-wide, non-partisan elections. Each justice is elected for a ten-year term, and only one justice may be elected in any year. In the event of a vacancy on the court, the governor has the power to appoint an individual to the vacancy, but that justice must then stand for election in the first year where no other justice's term expires.

The justice with the longest continuous service on the court serves as the chief justice, unless that justice declines, in which case the role passes to the next senior justice of the court. In such a case, the declining justice continues to serve as a justice on the court.

Current Justices

In the News: Articles

Court rules in favor of Menasha Corporation (7/15/08)

A ruling on Friday by the State Supreme Court in favor of Menasha Corp., could worsen the state's budget woes. The ruling involved the collection of sales tax on computer software purchased by Menasha Corp.

State law exempts custom software from sales and use tax, but the Wisconsin Department of Revenue claimed that the software purchased by the company was not custom software even though Menasha paid $17 million to customize it. The Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission initially ruled in favor of the company, but the state then appealed that decision to the Dane County Circuit Court where Judge Steven Ebert overturned the appeals commission ruling.

According to the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau the ruling could mean that the state would lose $300 million in sales tax refunds to companies which had already paid similar claims and in diminished sales tax collections. [4]

Increased Public Funding for Supreme Court Elections? (2008)

Under a 2008 bill passed by the Democratically held Wisconsin Senate, Supreme Court candidates would qualify for $100,000 each in publicly financed campaign contributions (assuming they raised between $5,000 and $10,000 on their own), for Supreme Court primary races; primary contestants would be granted $300,000. Currently, Supreme Court candidates can get up to $97,000 in public campaign grants.

Stipulations are made on private individuals, as well. Under the proposed legislation, individuals and committees would be allowed to contribute a maximum of $1,000 to a Supreme Court justice annually. Currently, individuals can donate up to $10,000 annually, and committees up to $8,625.

Impetus for the measure comes on the heals of a highly contested and costly Supreme Court election in 2007 between now-justice Annette K. Ziegler and Linda Clifford. Combined, the two spent nearly $6 million; according to a February 2008 AP report, nearly half of that was from "outside groups."

Proponents for the measure suggest the bill would dissuade would-be and incumbent justices from being influenced by private-interest dollars when ruling on important court cases.

In December 2007, the Supreme Court justices sent a letter to lawmakers and Governor Jim Doyle saying they support the legislation.

Senator Pat Kreitlow (D-Chippewa Falls) is the bill's main author. The Senate passed the measure, 21-10, without much debate. It now goes to the Republican-held State Assembly, where Speaker Mike Huebsch (R-West Salem) does not favor using tax dollars to finance public campaigns.[5]

Public Funding Debate

The idea of public funding for court races goes back to at least 2000. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a study sponsored by the non-partisan group Wisconsin Citizen Action found that nearly 75% of the high court's cases during the past 10 years involved at least one campaign contributor, although there was no connection found between donations and court decisions.[6] Carolyn Castore of Wisconsin Citizen Action applauded the move towards public-funded elections, saying, "In an effort to clean up the way Supreme Court races are funded, the committee has taken a giant step towards ensuring the impartiality and independence of the Wisconsin Supreme Court."[7]

Laws Governing Wisconsin Judicial Campaigns

Notable Judicial Campaigns

Historic Cases and Rulings

In Re: Booth 3 Wis. 1 (1854) What has come to be known as the Booth case is actually a series of cases from the Wisconsin Supreme Court and one from the U.S. Supreme Court. In the midst of the pre-Civil War states’ rights movement, the Wisconsin Supreme Court boldly defied federal judicial authority and nullified the federal fugitive slave law (which required northern states to return runaway slaves). The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the state Supreme Court which, in a final act of defiance, never filed the mandates.[8]

Attorney General ex rel. Bashford v. Barstow 4 Wis. 567 (1856) The Wisconsin Supreme Court removed an incumbent governor from office after it was discovered that his victory was the result of fraud. This case helped to create the tradition of independence and honesty that has marked Wisconsin politics and law ever since. Further, the case established the independence of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the important principle that the Court has the power to interpret the state Constitution.[9]

Chamberlain v. Milwaukee and Mississippi Railroad 11 Wis. 248 (1860) This case represents an early effort on the part of the courts to give rights to injured workers. In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that an employer can be held responsible when negligence on the part of one employee injures another employee.[10]

In re Kemp 16 Wis. 382 (1863) This Civil War-era case provides another example of the state Supreme Court taking on the federal government. In this case, the Court ruled that President Abraham Lincoln could not suspend the writ of habeas corpus for civilians when marshal law was not in effect. Military troops had seized Kemp and imprisoned him after he helped to stage a draft riot.[11]

Whiting v. Sheboygan & Fond du Lac Railroad Company 25 Wis. 167 (1870) Whiting established the important principle that the government may not impose a tax on its citizens for a private purpose. In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Fond du Lac County could not levy a tax on county residents to raise funds for the completion of a railroad.[12]

Gillespie v. Palmer and others 20 Wis. 544 (1866) The decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Gillespie extended the right to vote to black residents of the state. The question had been put on a referendum, which had passed, but election inspectors attempted to keep black people from voting by arguing that the vote had been misconstrued. A unanimous Court held that the vote was valid.[13]

Attorney General v. Chicago & Northwestern Railroad Company 35 Wis. 425 (1874) This case, popularly referred to as Attorney General v. Railroad, marked the beginning in this state of the struggle between corporate interests and the rights of the individual citizen. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in this case decided that the state did, indeed, have the authority to regulate railroads. This curtailed the railroads’ ability to arbitrarily set rates for freight and passenger fares in each community. Up to this point, the railroads had been able to set very low or very high rates if they chose—which could make or break a community.[14]

Motion to admit Miss Lavinia Goodell to the Bar of this Court and Application of Miss Goodell 39 Wis. 232 (1875) and 48 Wis. 693 (1879) These cases stand as a testament to the obstacles women faced in the 19th century as they attempted to work in traditionally male professions. Lavinia Goodell was a Janesville attorney and the first woman to apply for admission to the bar of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (at that time, practice before the state’s high Court required admission to a separate bar). In the first case, her application was denied; in the second, following a legislative act that prohibited denial of bar admissions based on gender, she was admitted.[15]

Brown v. Phillips and others 71 Wis. 239 (1888) In this case, in a unanimous opinion, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to expand women’s suffrage. In doing so, the Court narrowly interpreted a state statute which gave women the right to vote only on school-related matters. In the opinion, the Court emphasized that the power to grant suffrage belonged to the Legislature.[16]

State ex rel. Weiss and others vs. District Board, etc. 76 Wis. 177 (1890) In this case, popularly known as the Edgerton Bible case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that Bible reading in public schools is unconstitutional. Until this point, the King James Bible had been recommended as a textbook by the state superintendent of schools.[17]

The State ex rel. Attorney General v. Cunningham and The State ex rel. Lamb v. Cunningham 81 Wis. 440 (1892) and 83 Wis. 90 (1892) These cases demonstrate the power struggle, which is designed into a democratic system, among the three branches of government. The Wisconsin Supreme Court outlawed gerrymandering; that is, drawing creative legislative districts to preserve partisan political advantage.[18]

Nunnemacher v. State 129 Wis. 190 (1906) In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld a tax on inheritance, one of the key laws of the Progressives. In issuing this opinion, the Court departed from a course charted by many courts around the nation which had found a natural right to inherit and had determined that legislatures could not interfere with this right by levying a tax.[19]

Borgnis and others v. The Falk Company 147 Wis. 327 (1911) In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law creating workers’ compensation and strengthened the rights of employees by finding that the law covered even individuals employed in "non-hazardous" trades.[20]

Wait v. Pierce 191 Wis. 202 (1926) This case marks an important step forward for women in Wisconsin. In a 4-3 ruling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted women the right to sue their husbands. In so doing, the Court broadly interpreted a 1921 law which gave women the right to vote, finding that the law granted women a number of additional rights.[21]

John F. Jelke Company v. Emery 193 Wis. 311 (1927) This case centers on a quirky Wisconsin law that made it a crime to manufacture or sell margarine in the state. The Legislature had enacted the law in 1925 to aid the dairy industry. An unanimous Court found that the Legislature had no power to attempt to regulate competition to give one industry an advantage over another.[22]

State ex rel. Drankovich v. Murphy 248 Wis. 433 (1945) In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court strengthened the right to legal counsel for defendants in criminal matters, determining that trial judges must make these individuals aware of this right and that a lawyer must be provided at public expense, when necessary, even if the defendant does not request counsel.[23]

State v. Yoder 49 Wis.2d 430 (1971) In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court weighed the state’s interest in educating children against the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. The Court held that a state law requiring children to attend school full time was unconstitutional because it infringed on the freedom of the Amish to practice their religion. In reaching this decision, the Court distinguished itself from courts around the country that had upheld compulsory education. The case was appealed to (and affirmed by) the U.S. Supreme Court.[24]

State v. Stevens 123 Wis.2d 303 (1985) In the 1980s and 1990s many cases have come to the courts challenging the validity of a search or seizure under the federal and state constitutions. This is one such case. In this case, a divided Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that police may seize and search a person’s garbage without a warrant.[25]

State v. Mitchell 169 Wis.2d 153 (1992) This case illustrates legislative action against bigotry and the possible conflict between such laws and the free speech guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. Here, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, on a 5-2 vote, found unconstitutional a state law which enhanced the penalty for a crime if the victim was selected on the basis of characteristics such as race or sexual orientation. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision.[26]

Thompson v. Benson 199 Wis. 2d 674 (1996) This case illustrates the restrictions the Wisconsin Constitution places on legislative enactments and the checks and balances that exist in a three-branch system of government. Here, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stopped an attempt to take powers away from the elected state superintendent of schools and give them to gubernatorial appointees.[27]

Libertarian Party of Wisconsin v. Thompson 199 Wis.2d 790 (1996) This case began and ended in the Wisconsin Supreme Court; the Court took original action rather than sitting (as it normally does) as an appellate court. The case illustrates the restrictions the state Constitution places on private laws and laws contracting public debt. While the Court has shot down taxes collected for a specific purpose in other cases, it found here that Wisconsin Act 56, which created a tax in five counties to raise money for a new Milwaukee Brewers stadium, served a legitimate public purpose by encouraging economic development and tourism and reducing unemployment.[28]

Risser v. Klauser 207 Wis.2d 177, N.W.2d (1997) This case is one of a number of cases focusing on the governor’s veto power that have come to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The case began and ended in the state’s high Court, with the Court taking original action rather than sitting as an appellate court. Its 4-3 decision served to further define the veto power of the governor and the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.[29]

See also

External links

References

  1. ↑ Supreme Court Functions
  2. ↑ Supreme Court Functions
  3. ↑ Supreme Court Functions
  4. ↑ State Supreme Court decision punches another hole in state budget
  5. ↑ Senate approves more public financing for Supreme Court races
  6. ↑ [Personal Wealth Fueled Campaigns, Study Says Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, May 15, 2001]
  7. ↑ [Court Hopefuls May Get Funds, (Madison, WI) Capital Times, July 20, 2001]
  8. ↑ Famous Case #1
  9. ↑ Famous Case #2
  10. ↑ Famous Case #3
  11. ↑ Famous Case #4
  12. ↑ Famous Case #5
  13. ↑ Famous Case #6
  14. ↑ Famous Case #7
  15. ↑ Famous Case #8
  16. ↑ Famous Case #10
  17. ↑ Famous Case #11
  18. ↑ Famous Case #12
  19. ↑ Famous Case #13
  20. ↑ Famous Case #14
  21. ↑ Famous Case #15
  22. ↑ Famous Case #16
  23. ↑ Famous Case #17
  24. ↑ Famous Case #18
  25. ↑ Famous Case #19
  26. ↑ Famous Case #20
  27. ↑ Famous Case #21
  28. ↑ Famous Case #22
  29. ↑ Famous Case #23

Portions of this article have been taken from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Copyright Notice can be found here.

State Supreme Courts
Retrieved from "http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Wisconsin_Supreme_Court"