≡ Menu

3. Claim/Issue Preclusion

State v. Thomas Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2005 WI 104, reversing 2004 WI App 116 For Smith: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Smith’s unsuccessful prior challenge to the court support order bars him, under principles of claim preclusion, from challenging the validity of the order in the present non-support prosecution, ¶¶21-23. The court… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Claim preclusion doesn’t bind subsequent action involving exclusion of evidence due to discovery violation, where sanctioned case was dismissed and then reissued and discovery begun anew:: ¶26. We conclude that claim preclusion is not applicable for two independent reasons… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Defenses – Claim Preclusion, Generally

State ex rel Kim J. Barksdale v. Litscher, 2004 WI App 130 Issue/Holding: ¶13. Barksdale next argues that, even if the circuit court properly allowed the warden to raise claim preclusion as a defense, the defense must fail because all of the elements for claim preclusion are not present. The burden of proving claim preclusion… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Issue preclusion doesn’t bind subsequent action involving exclusion of evidence due to discovery violation, where sanctioned case was dismissed and then reissued and discovery begun anew: ¶22. In the second action, the facts were different in that Miller already… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Judicial estoppel didn’t prevent admissibility of evidence excluded as discovery sanction in prior, dismissed but then reissued action, where judge who dismissed prior action after imposing sanction contemplated that the excluded evidence would not be barred in a… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Michael S. Johnson v. Berge, 2003 WI App 51 Issue/Holding: Review of issue preclusion is governed by Paige K.B. v. Steven G.B., 226 Wis. 2d 210, 594 Wis. 2d 370 (1999). The record isn’t sufficient to review the issue. ¶¶13-14. For discussion on preclusive effect of state court suppression ruling on federal court dealing with same evidence… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02 For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether a 980 petition was barred because a prior petition was dismissed at trial for insufficient proof, but the respondent was subsequently returned to prison on a parole revocation for a violation not involving an act… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Ronald G. Sorenson, 2001 WI App 251, PFR filed For Sorenson: T. Christopher Kelly Issue1: Whether issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) may be used “offensively” by the state in a Ch. 980 trial to bar a respondent from presenting evidence that s/he didn’t commit the offense which underlies the qualifying conviction. Holding: ¶28  Accordingly, we… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS