Opinions

Brantner v. Jenson, 121 Wis. 2d 658, 360 N.W.2d 529 (1985)

Due to a car accident, the plaintiff suffered a back injury and was told he might need surgery. After consulting a surgeon and speaking to his father who had the same surgery, the plaintiff became fearful about the pain and recovery time associated with the procedure. In a unanimous opinion, Abrahamson held that evidence of the plaintiff’s fear of possible future surgery was admissible and could be considered by the jury when determining damages for mental distress from the injury he sustained in the accident.

Sheboygan County v. Neal J.G., 2003 WI 11, 259 Wis. 2d 563, 657 N.W.2d 363

When the State seeks to terminate a person’s parental rights to an Indian child, it must comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act, a federal law aimed at promoting the stability of Indian tribes and families. In this case, the majority held that the state court did not have reason to know that the children involved might be Indian. Abrahamson dissented and argued that a father’s assertion that his children had Indian heritage, even if he could not identify the tribe, was sufficient to trigger the federal law.

Teague v. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 2003 WI 118, 265 Wis. 2d 64, 655 N.W.2d 899

Sometimes an Indian tribal court and a state court have concurrent jurisdiction over a civil dispute. Ultimately, one court must yield to the other—but how do they decide? Abrahamson, writing for the majority, reinforced an earlier ruling that when tribal and state courts realize that they have concurrent jurisdiction over a dispute they should apply principles of comity to determine which court should proceed. Then she listed 13 comity principles and explained how their application fosters tribal self-government and collaboration between tribal and state courts.

State ex rel. Bilder v. Town of Delavan, 112 Wis. 2d 539, 334 N.W.2d 252 (1983)

A police chief sued the Town of Delavan regarding his suspension for alleged misconduct while in office. A newspaper sought access to the court file. In a unanimous opinion, Abrahamson held that newspapers have a protectible legal interest in opening court documents for public examination. Pleadings and exhibits on file with the circuit court fall within Wis. Stats. §59.14, which reflects a basic tenet of democracy–people have the right to know about the operations of their government, including the judicial branch. There are limited exceptions to this rule, but the police chief did not meet them.

Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District, 2010 WI 86, 327 Wis. 2d 572, 786 N.W.2d 177

Wisconsin drafted its public records law before email technology existed. This case involved an open records request for personal emails that teachers sent and received on government email and computer systems. Abrahamson held that Wisconsin’s Public Records Law is a powerful tool for keeping track of government, and email generally qualifies as a “record” under that law. However, personal emails that evince no violation of law or policy should not be released to the public simply because they were sent and received on government email and computer systems.

State v. Mitchell, 169 Wis. 2d 153, 485 N.W.2d 807 (1992)

A defendant convicted of aggravated battery received an enhanced sentence under Wisconsin’s hate crimes statute because he intentionally selected his victim based on race. The majority declared that the statute violated the defendant’s First Amendment right to freedom of thought. Abrahamson dissented. She said that the statute prohibited conduct, not beliefs or expression. “Bigots are free to think and express themselves as they wish, except they may not engage in criminal conduct in furtherance of their beliefs.” In a unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court adopted Abrahamson’s view of the law and upheld the statute. Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).

State v. Richards, 201 Wis. 2d 845, 549 N.W.2d 218 (1996)

In this case, the majority opinion held that police officers are never required to knock and announce their presence before entering a home to execute a search warrant in a felony drug investigation. Justice Abrahamson filed a concurring opinion arguing that the 4th Amendment does not permit a blanket exception to the “knock and announce” requirement, but the facts of this case permitted a “no-knock” entry. The United States Supreme Court sided with Justice Abrahamson and reversed the majority opinion. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997).

State v. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, 332 Wis. 2d 620, 796 N.W.2d 741

Wisconsin long recognized that if the State charged a person with a crime, and the person had retained or appointed counsel, the 6th Amendment precluded the police from questioning him or her. This case addressed a new United States Supreme Court decision, which held that the 6th Amendment permits police to question a person charged with a crime unless he invokes the right to counsel. Wisconsin’s justices could not agree on a majority opinion. Abrahamson, one of the nation’s leading proponents of “new federalism,” filed a concurrence arguing that Article I, §7 of the Wisconsin Constitution should be interpreted to continue the longstanding rule because it better protects the right to counsel.

State v. Scott, 2018 WI 74, 382 Wis. 2d 476, 914 N.W.2d 141

The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that all people, including prisoners, have a significant, constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding unwanted antipsychotic medications administered by the government. Chief Justice Abrahamson, writing for a unanimous court, held that a person has the right to appeal an involuntary medication order and the right to an automatic stay of that order while he pursues his appeal.

Winnebago County v. J.M., 2018 WI 37, 381 Wis. 2d 28, 911 N.W.2d 41

Wisconsin law allows counties to forcibly commit people who are mentally ill and dangerous for inpatient or outpatient treatment. These people have a statutory right to counsel during their commitment proceedings. Abrahamson, writing for a unanimous court, held that people undergoing commitments also have the right to the effective assistance of counsel. The legal standard for evaluating whether defense counsel in a mental commitment case was ineffective is the same as in criminal cases: Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).