Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Basil E. Ryan, Jr., 2011 WI App 21, review granted 5/24/11

on petition for review of published decision; case activity

Issues (provided by court):

Can a defendant be found guilty under the forfeiture statutes on the grounds of judicial estoppel where the defendant claims he made no statement to a prior court?

Did the undisputed facts on the record establish that if judicial estoppel had not been applied, the defendant neither owned nor controlled the barge that sunk in a navigable waterway in order to be liable under the forfeiture statutes for violations of Wis. Stat. ch. 30?

If judicial estoppel had not been applied, is there a dispute as to material fact[s] that precludes summary judgment as to whether the defendant owned or controlled the barge to be liable under the forfeiture statutes?

Can the summary judgment procedure be employed to find a defendant liable under the forfeiture statues for violations of Wis. Stat. ch. 30?

The merits relate to unlawfully placing and maintaining a sunken barge on the bed of the Menomonee River, §§ 30.12 and 30.10. More power to you if that connects to your practice in some way. But even if not, the judicial estoppel issue – Ryan asserted in a prior action that he was equitable owner of the barge, but denied ownership in this one – might be of some interest.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment