8 results for 'judge:"Bradley"'.
J. Bradley finds the circuit court properly denied the biological mother's petition to allow her non-marital partner of more than 10 years to legally adopt her child. The circuit court correctly interpreted the relevant Wisconsin law, which, among other things, prohibits the adoption of a child by someone who is not the spouse of the biological parent. Because Wisconsin's adoption statutes do not involve a fundamental right or a protected class under either the U.S. Constitution or Wisconsin Constitution, and because there is a rational basis for the restrictions in the adoption statute, the mother and partner's challenge under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment fails. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Bradley, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: 2022AP001334, Categories: Constitution, Family Law
J. Bradley finds the labor appeals agency properly concluded that the Catholic charities group and its four sub-entities must contribute unemployment taxes to the state unemployment insurance system. State law requires an examination of both an organization's motivations and activities to determine if it is "operated primarily for religious purposes," and such an examination of the group and its sub-entities shows they are not operated primarily for religious purposes and are therefore not exempt from unemployment taxes. The group and its sub-entities have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the relevant statute as applied to them violates the First Amendment or the Wisconsin Constitution. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Bradley, Filed On: March 14, 2024, Case #: 2020AP002007, Categories: Administrative Law, Constitution, Tax
J. Grassl Bradley finds the court of appeals improperly reversed the circuit court's order affirming the state claims board's decision to award the citizen $25,000 after he sought more than $5.7 million for being wrongfully imprisoned for 26 years for murder as a party to a crime even though he was innocent, having participated in an assault of the victim before the murder but not the murder itself. Even though the claims board is on the record saying the citizen was innocent of the murder charge, the relevant statute does not require the claims board to submit a report to the state legislature arguing for more than the $25,000 statutory maximum compensation if it does not find that amount adequate, nor is it required to address the citizen's claim for further damages in its final decision. Because the board did not find $25,000 to be inadequate, and because nothing in the law requires it to make a specific adequacy finding or take further action to explain its decision-making, the citizen's appeal for a re-hearing fails. Reversed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Grassl Bradley, Filed On: June 30, 2023, Case #: 2021AP000373, Categories: Administrative Law, Agency
J. Grassl Bradley finds the court of appeals improperly reversed the circuit court's denial of the father's motion to withdraw a no contest plea he entered in a child protective services case that ultimately ended with the termination of his parental rights, which he asserts he did not fully understand was potentially at stake. The circuit court properly informed the father that termination of his parental rights was one of multiple possibilities at the disposition stage, and the state was found to have met a clear and convincing evidence burden to prove termination was in the child's best interest even though it was not legally required to meet that burden. Given other evidence showing the father understood his plea deal, it remains valid despite his assertion that he thought a more favorable outcome would come of it. Reversed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Grassl Bradley, Filed On: June 30, 2023, Case #: 2022AP000652, Categories: Civil Procedure, Family Law
J. Grassl Bradley finds the court of appeals improperly reversed the circuit court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss his felony trafficking of a child case after the circuit court declared a mistrial due to the defense presenting third-party perpetrator evidence without notifying the state beforehand or getting a ruling on admissibility from the circuit court. Contrary to defendant's arguments, a retrial of his case would not violate his constitutional protection against double jeopardy, as all of the factors in the relevant precedent are met to support the circuit court's use of solid discretion to declare a mistrial based on "manifest necessity." The circuit court properly did this in part because the state never knew about the surprise testimony implicating a third party in the underlying sex trafficking crime and it never made a ruling on that evidence, and in part because the circuit court reasonably concluded a curative jury instruction could not "unring the bell," even though the evidence was later deemed admissible. Reversed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Grassl Bradley, Filed On: June 29, 2023, Case #: 2021AP000267-CR, Categories: Sex Offender, Double Jeopardy, Human Trafficking
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Grassl Bradley finds the circuit court properly ruled in favor of the taxpayers group in their lawsuit over a transportation utility fee the town collected, which the group claims is essentially an unlawful property tax. The fee, which no one disputes is technically a tax on properties meant to generate revenue for funding the construction and maintenance of public roads, unlawfully collected taxes beyond the town's municipal levy limit under Wisconsin statutes, and it did so based on an unlawful methodology that sought to collect taxes from commercial properties based in part on their estimated amount of use of municipal roads. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Grassl Bradley, Filed On: June 29, 2023, Case #: 2022AP001233, Categories: Government, Property, Tax
J. Walsh Bradley finds the circuit court properly dismissed the village from the property owners’ lawsuit appealing a special assessment because they did not serve the village according to controlling statutes. The relevant law unambiguously requires service in writing directly to the village clerk, and the property owners failed to follow it by instead emailing their summons and complaint and notice of appeal to the village’s attorney, even though the attorney told them at the time that he was accepting service on behalf of the village. The village clerk also does not qualify as a “party” to the lawsuit under Wisconsin statutes even though statutes require that the clerk be served with any notices of appeal in special assessment matters, in part because those officials do not “impose or enforce” special assessments. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Walsh Bradley, Filed On: June 21, 2023, Case #: 2021AP000069-FT, Categories: Municipal Law, Tax
J. Grassl Bradley finds the court of appeals properly affirmed the circuit court's denial of defendant's post-conviction motion in part seeking a new trial on the basis that his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses at his trial on charges of selling methamphetamine was violated by harmful hearsay testimony elicited by the state. Though the circuit court may have erred in allowing the state to elicit testimony from one police officer ostensibly to establish the state of mind of another officer who observed defendant selling meth during an unrecorded controlled buy but whose testimony was barred as a discovery sanction, the overwhelming balance of the evidence against defendant means the outcome of his trial would not have been different, so the error was harmless, assuming it occurred. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Grassl Bradley, Filed On: June 6, 2023, Case #: 2018AP002005-CR, Categories: Confrontation, Constitution, Drug Offender