Appellate Decisions Released May 31, 2006
The Wisconsin Supreme Court released its opinion in Richards v. First Union Securities, Inc. today. The Court ruled that when a party seeks to set aside a default judgment because of improper service, the moving party bears the burden of proving ineffective service. The Court also ruled that a "managing agent," for purposes of sufficiency of service, is "a person possessing and exercising the right of general control, authority, judgment, and discretion over the business or affairs of the corporation, either on an overall or part basis, i.e., everywhere or in a particular branch or district."
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions today, recommending publication of the following:
Norda, Inc. v. Wisconsin Educational Approval Board. The Court of Appeals ruled that a company offering programs that lead to Department of Public Instruction teacher certification is not subject to oversight by the Wisconsin Education Approval Board.
Linda L. v. James Collis (custody of a minor).
State v. Rockette. State's witness, who had previously made inculpatory statements in prior interviews and testimony regarding the defendant, claimed no present memory of the statements. The Circuit Court declared the witness hostile and allowed the State to ask leading questions about his prior statements. Cross-examination, naturally, bore no fruit as the witness continued to claim no memory of the prior statements. The Court of Appeals ruled this did not violate Defendant's right to confront witnesses against him. There was no mention of dance revues.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions today, recommending publication of the following:
Norda, Inc. v. Wisconsin Educational Approval Board. The Court of Appeals ruled that a company offering programs that lead to Department of Public Instruction teacher certification is not subject to oversight by the Wisconsin Education Approval Board.
Linda L. v. James Collis (custody of a minor).
State v. Rockette. State's witness, who had previously made inculpatory statements in prior interviews and testimony regarding the defendant, claimed no present memory of the statements. The Circuit Court declared the witness hostile and allowed the State to ask leading questions about his prior statements. Cross-examination, naturally, bore no fruit as the witness continued to claim no memory of the prior statements. The Court of Appeals ruled this did not violate Defendant's right to confront witnesses against him. There was no mention of dance revues.


<< Home