Archives: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Given the low perception in which lawyers and the legal system are held by the general public, it is absurd that most trials can be televised but oral arguments before most appellate courts cannot.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision in Dickau is the second appellate case dealing with the interrelationship between retirement and disability.

An article in today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel entitled “Prosser May Use Campaign Account to Pay Legal Bills” raises several common questions about judicial politics and finances with an unusual twist.

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.

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.

Wisconsin had long adhered to the “relevance” test for expert testimony: Whether the evidence would likely assist the finder of fact. As recently as a year ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to adopt Daubert. Never shy, the Wisconsin Legislature has decided it knows evidentiary law better than the Wisconsin Supreme Court.