The Wisconsin Supreme Court has accepted five new cases for review, including a case that will focus on the fairness of prison disciplinary proceedings following a prison riot.

In Brunton v. Nuvell Credit Corp., the court will determine whether a defendant waived a challenge to improper venue under Wisconsin Statute section 421.401, the venue provision of the Wisconsin Consumer Act.  The plaintiff in the action admits that the case was brought in an improper venue (Dane County), but section 421.401 contemplates that a defendant may “appear[] and waive[] the improper venue.”   The defendant did appear, and litigated the case for over a year before filing its motion for summary judgment on jurisdictional grounds due to the improper venue.  The plaintiff argues that the defendant’s appearance and litigation activity constituted a waiver of the venue challenge.  The court will determine whether a waiver did take place within the meaning of section 421.401.

Another case, Solowicz v. Forward Geneva National, is a condominium owners’ challenge to the broad and seemingly perpetual powers retained by the developer under a large planned community’s restrictive covenants. In its summary of the decision, the court describes the arguments as follows:   “The condominium owners contend the covenant conflicts with ch. 703, which would require a developer to develop the property within three years, or ten years, if it is expandable, and that both time limits long passed. The developers contended before the Court of Appeals that Geneva National is a master-planned community, not a condominium venture and that it sees vast differences between condominiums and master-planned communities. The developers explained that master-planned communities present a complex development method, distinct from condominiums, requiring the developer to retain control so that it may react to varying market and government conditions in seeing its vision through and its investment secured. A decision by the Supreme Court could clarify law in this area.”

In Bank Mutual v. S.J. Boyer Construction, the court will consider the effect of a bank’s waiver of its right to a deficiency judgment against the debtor.  Does waiver of the deficiency via the shortened redemption period in Wisconsin Statute section 846.103(2) also waive the bank’s rights against a separate guarantor?  The question is raised in the context of a commercial loan with a personal guarantee.

In a certification from the court of appeals, Johnson Controls v. London Market, the court will consider the next chapter in a long, complex litigation among Johnson Controls and multiple insurers with regard to coverage for costs of cleaning environmental pollution.  The court’s description of the case says that “[t]he present appeal deals only with whether London Market has a duty to defend Johnson Controls under the terms of its excess umbrella liability policy.”

Finally, in a case arising out of a prison riot, Jackson v. Blucher, the court will consider challenges to the evidence and other issues regardin the fairness of the proceedings. This case stems from a prison disciplinary action against Darnell Jackson, who was accused of inciting the riot, and found guilty in proceedings that he now challenges as unfair.  The court’s website identifies the issues as follows: 

• Did the inclusion on a prison disciplinary committee of a prison official who briefly interviewed Jackson regarding the riot violate Jackson’s right to a fair and impartial decision maker?
• Did Jackson exhaust his administrative remedies regarding the production of a surveillance videotape, and may the Supreme Court review the issue even if he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies?
• Does the obligation of governmental authorities to produce exculpatory information under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), apply to prison disciplinary proceedings? If so, what should be the process to determine if the information is exculpatory and what should be the remedy for failure to produce it?
• Was there sufficient evidence to support Jackson’s violation of a prison regulation?