Civil Procedure – Page 6 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Change in Wisconsin Venue Law

Post author:Melissa Love Koenig
Post published:February 13, 2012
Post category:Civil Procedure Public Wisconsin Civil Litigation

Wisconsin Act 61 changed the law in Wisconsin regarding where a lawsuit is venued. Adjunct Professor Erin O’Connor recently wrote this article on the change in the law and its implications for Wisconsin litigation.

The new law affects both where a case may initially be venued, as well as where an appeal may be brought. Professor O’Connor notes in her article that as a general matter, “a plaintiff can file its action against the state in any county – including counties having no connection to the defendant, the plaintiff, or the cause of action.”

With regard to appeals, under the new law, a party seeking an appeal may not file the appeal in the same court of appeals district where the case was originally venued at the circuit court. However, the party may choose among the remaining three Wisconsin court of appeals districts.

The Court of Appeals Speaks in the Recall Case

Post author:Edward A. Fallone
Post published:February 3, 2012
Post category:Civil Procedure Election Law Judges & Judicial Process Public Wisconsin Law & Legal System

Today, the District IV Court of Appeals issued an opinion that reverses a ruling by the Waukesha County Circuit Court denying a motion to intervene in the case of Friends of Scott Walker v. Brennan. The practical impact of today’s Court of Appeals decision is that the committees seeking the recall of Governor Walker and other Republican officeholders will be permitted to intervene in the case of Friends of Scott Walker v. Brennan. As a result, all of the legal rulings made by Judge Davis subsequent to his denial of the motion to intervene must be vacated, so that these legal issues can be reargued with the participation of the recall committees.

This means that Judge Davis’ earlier ruling, interpreting the statutory procedures for recalls under Section 9.10, is now vacated. On January 5, 2012, Judge Davis ordered the Government Accountability Board (GAB) to take affirmative steps to identify and strike any recall signatures that are fictitious, duplicative or unrecognizable. Because of this earlier ruling, the GAB went ahead and adopted new procedures, purchased new signature recognition software, and sought additional time in which to review the recall petitions.

Arbitrator’s Social Life Overturns Award

Post author:Andrea K. Schneider
Post published:July 7, 2011
Post category:Civil Procedure

In Dallas last week, a court overturned a $22 million (!) arbitration decision because the arbitrator had failed to disclose that he had socialized with one of the lawyers.

As the Wall Street Journal law blog reported:

Arbitration awards, as most litigators know, are very difficult to overturn on appeal.

That’s why a Dallas appellate court’s decision this week to vacate a $22 million arbitration award is so notable.

The reason for the appellate court’s ruling: the arbitrator failed to disclose contacts he’d had with a lawyer in the case, including attending a Dallas Mavericks basketball game and sharing meals with the attorney.