BAUER v. DEFOREST/WINDSOR MUN. CT., 00-1906 (Wis.Ct.App. 4-26-2001)

Susan Bauer, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DeForest/Windsor Municipal Court, Respondent-Respondent, Village of DeForest, Intervenor.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
Case No. 00-1906.
Opinion Released: April 26, 2001. Opinion Filed: April 26, 2001. This opinion will not be published. Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County: DIANE M. NICKS, Judg . Affirmed.

Before Vergeront, Roggensack and Deininger, JJ.

¶ 1. PER CURIAM.

Susan Bauer, pro se, appeals the circuit court’s order denying her petition for a writ of mandamus. She sought an order compelling the municipal court to waive transcript fees under Wis. Stat. § 814.29
(1999-2000)[1] in relation to her appeal of an adverse municipal court judgment. We affirm.

¶ 2. The circuit court denied Bauer’s petition for writ of mandamus because it concluded that Bauer’s claims were barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. “Issue preclusion forecloses relitigation in a subsequent action of an issue of law or fact that has been actually litigated and decided in a prior action.” Jensen v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins.Co., 204 Wis.2d 231, 235, 554 N.W.2d 232 (Ct.App. 1996). The circuit court concluded that Bauer had previously brought mandamus actions to compel the municipal court to waive fees and costs in relation to the same municipal action and that the petitions were denied.

¶ 3. Bauer contends that the transcript fee waiver issue has not been previously litigated. She has not, however, included documents from the prior circuit court cases in the appellate record. The appellant bears the burden of ensuring that the record is sufficient to review the issues raised on appeal. State Bank of Hartland v. Arndt, 129 Wis.2d 411, 423, 385 N.W.2d 219 (Ct.App. 1986). When an appeal is brought on an incomplete record, we will assume that every fact essential to sustain the circuit court’s decision is supported by the record. Id. Because Bauer has failed to include documents to substantiate her claim that the transcript fee waiver issue was not previously decided, the circuit court’s order must be affirmed.

By the Court. — Order affirmed.

[1] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1999-2000 version unless otherwise noted.
jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TEMPLIN, 886 N.W.2d 79 (2016)

886 N.W.2d 79 (2016) 2016 WI 83 In the Matter of DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Thor…

9 years ago

EASTERLING v. LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION, No. 2016AP190 (Wis. App. 2/2/2017)

     Recommended for publication in the official reports. STATE OF WISCONSIN IN THE COURT OF…

9 years ago

VOSBURG v. PUTNEY, 80 Wis. 523 (1891)

80 Wis. 523, *; 50 N.W. 403, ** VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v.…

9 years ago

STATE v. NOWAK, 2011 WI App 99

334 Wis.2d 809, 800 N.W.2d 957 State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jenny L. Nowak, Defendant-Appellant.…

9 years ago

STATE v. HAASE, 2006 WI 126

297 Wis.2d 320 State v. Haase. No. 2005AP987-CR.Supreme Court of Wisconsin. September 21, 2006. [EDITOR'S…

9 years ago

STATE v. SKIBBA, 2001 WI App 224

247 Wis.2d 990, 635 N.W.2d 26 State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Anthony F. Skibba, Sr.,…

9 years ago