Wisconsin Supreme Court Accepts State v. Hoppe for Review, on Plea Colloquy Issues

Supreme Court sealBeginning with this post, I will report here when the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepts new cases for review. I invite your comments.

Last week the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted to accept State v. Hoppe for review.  The issue presented, according the court’s press release, is “the extent to which a judge may rely on the contents of a plea questionnaire and waiver of rights form” in lieu of questioning the defendant on the record.  

Continue ReadingWisconsin Supreme Court Accepts State v. Hoppe for Review, on Plea Colloquy Issues

First Steps Toward Electronic Filing in Wisconsin State Appellate Courts

Last week the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously approved two petitions, one by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (08-15) and one by the Clerk of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (08-18), to require filing of an electronic copy of briefs and petitions for review.  The State Bar reports that the court rejected a portion of the proposed rule that would have barred the public from accessing the electronic filings.  Instead, the court determined that electronic copies of filed documents should be made accessible to the public as soon as possible.  The only exception will be for appendices; filing of electronic copies of appendices will be optional, not mandatory, and the scanned appendices will not be made accessible to the public.  The Bar further reports, “Although both petitions seek an effective date of July 1, 2009, for the proposed rules, it is expected that the system will be up and running before then, and the petitioners hope lawyers will begin using the system on a voluntary basis early in 2009.”

Continue ReadingFirst Steps Toward Electronic Filing in Wisconsin State Appellate Courts

Should Non-Precedential Opinions Be “Precedential But Overrulable” Opinions?

A post at Legal Theory Blog alerted me to Amy E. Sloan‘s new article, If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em:  A Pragmatic Approach to Nonprecedential Opinions in the Federal Appellate Courts, 86 Neb. L. Rev. 895 (2008), available on SSRN.  Amy Sloan is an Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Legal Skills program at University of Baltimore School of Law.  She is well known to legal writing professors, and to many law students, as the author of a popular legal research textbook, Basic Legal Research: Tools and Strategies.

Sloan makes an interesting argument, advocating that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 be amended to assign non-precedential opinions a sort of “mixed” precedential value, specifically, that “non-precedential opinions [would be] binding unless overruled by a later panel’s precedential opinion.”  She contends that giving non-precedential cases this “‘overrulable’ status” would ensure that the opinions’ precedential weight would “correspond[] to their position within the traditional hierarchy of federal decisional law.”  

Continue ReadingShould Non-Precedential Opinions Be “Precedential But Overrulable” Opinions?