Archives: Caselaw

Personally, I wish gay marriage was legal everywhere, but legally the current mishmash of laws is highly confusing.

Ex parte orders in custody cases are very dangerous in most cases.

It is bad enough that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is wrong on the public policy regarding the modifiability of child support. Now, thanks to an April decision, the justices not only continue to be wrong about the public policy involved — they also have confused what should be simple law.

Is any other state’s attorney discipline as lenient as Wisconsin? That question now has an answer.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in May not only shows that the court has the public policy wrong on child support, but has now made it even more confusing.

There are several amazing things about two recent attorney discipline cases.

This article will first examine the historical development of the concept of impermissible double counting, next examine the recent case (McReath v. McReath) and suggest what courts should do if the issue presents itself.

Listening to oral arguments is generally frustrating for me. Case in point: On Oct. 6, the Wisconsin Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May v. May.

On July 12, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its opinion in McReath v. McReath, involving the challenging issues of salable goodwill and double-counting of property and income. In a case involving important issues, how did the court do? Overall, pretty well.

When the Wisconsin Supreme Court chose to accept review of Topolski v. Topolski, I wondered why, especially after the court had rejected review of several family law cases where its input would’ve been useful. On July 8, the high court issued its decision, which – yawn – did nothing to change my mind, or to justify the time and effort expended by this court in granting review.