Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Appellate Decisions Released June 27, 2006

The Wisconsin Supreme Court released these opinions today:

Spiegelberg v. Department of Transportation. In this case the Department of Transportation condemned part of several contiguous parcels of property owned by the same person. The question before the Court was how to determine the value of the parts of the parcels taken by the Department for purposes of providing "just compensation" to the owner. One option was to aggregate the acreage of all of the parcels and then determine the fractional value of the part taken. The other was to consider the highest and best use of each individual parcel, and then determine the value of the portion taken from each parcel. The Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded the eminent domain statute allows for the flexible approach reflected in the latter option, resulting in a higher net award to the property owner.

State v. Smith. The Court held that an administrative assistant for the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office was not "objectively biased" for purposes of service on a jury in which the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office was the prosecuting agency.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions today, recommending publication of the following:

Toumkham v. Stiller. A complaint filed without signature does not require dismissal if the defect is promptly cured.

State v. Bedolla. A criminal defendant may withdraw his plea if he was not advised his plea could result in his deportation.

County of Milwaukee v. Williams. Milwaukee County has the authority to regulate taxicab operations at General Mitchell International Airport.

County of Milwaukee v. Hegney (same).

State v. Langham (length of probation as part of sentencing).

Leitinger v. Van Buren Management, Inc. The amount paid for a plaintiff's medical bills is inadmissible for the purpose of proving the amount of billed medical expenses was unreasonable.

Larson v. Burmaster. A high school teacher may assign summer homework, and doing so does not infringe on a parent's right to direct the education and upbringing of his children.