Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

b. Concessions

State v. David Lawrence Eastman, 2013AP1401-CR, District 3 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity A police officer may conduct a traffic stop when he has grounds to reasonably suspect that either a crime or a traffic violation has or will be committed.   See State v. Popke, 2009 WI 37, ¶23, 317 Wis. 2d 118… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Michael E. Ballenger, 2010AP664-CR, District 3, 11/16/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ballenger: Ryan D. Lister; Ballenger BiC; State’s Resp. Appellate Procedure – Sanction Ballenger’s brief’s appendix does not include any portion of the suppression motion hearing transcript—neither deputy Campbell’s testimony nor the court’s factual findings or reasoning for… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Timothy Charles Bauer, 2010 WI App 93; for Bauer: Catherine M. Canright; BiC; Resp.; Reply Search-Incident – Automobile By failing to address Bauer’s Arizona v. Gant argument, instead relying solely on State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 174, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986), the States’ argument compels the court to reverse the suppression order… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Gary A. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, affirming 2006 WI App 15For Johnson: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶14      … The State concedes before this court, as it did in the court of appeals, that Johnson did not freely consent to the search of his vehicle. [4] …  [4]  The dissent faults… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Dane Co. DHS v. Dyanne M., 2007 WI App 129, PFR filed 4/23 For Dyanne M.: Phillip J. Brehm Issue/Holding: Reply brief failure to address argument raised in response brief may be deemed conceded for purposes of appeal, ¶23 n. 7, citing Hoffman v. Economy Preferred Ins. Co., 2000 WI App 22, ¶9, 232 Wis… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Dawn R. Dartez, 2007 WI App 126, PFR filed 4/23 For Dartez: Bill Ginsberg Issue/Holding: Failure of a response brief to dispute a proposition in appellant’s brief may be taken as implicit concession of the proposition, ¶6 n. 3… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App 98 For Chu: Andrew Shaw, Rex R. Anderegg Issue/Holding: ¶41. In his reply brief, Chu offers no response to the State’s argument concerning information about Wales. Unrefuted arguments are deemed admitted. See Charolais Breeding Ranches v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493… Read More

{ 0 comments }