Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION                                                               NOTICE
DATED AND FILED
This  opinion  is  subject  to  further  editing.  If
published, the official version will appear in the
bound volume of the Official Reports.
April 26, 2001
                                                                                                 A  party  may  file  with  the  Supreme  Court  a
                                                                                                 petition  to  review  an  adverse  decision  by  the
                                                                       Cornelia G. Clark
                                                                                                 Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and
                                                                       Clerk, Court of Appeals
                                                                                                 RULE 809.62.
                                                                       of Wisconsin
No.                                                                    00-1906
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                     IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                       DISTRICT IV
SUSAN BAUER,
PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
V.
DEFOREST/WINDSOR MUNICIPAL COURT,
RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT,
VILLAGE OF DEFOREST
INTERVENOR.
APPEAL  from  an  order  of  the  circuit  court  for  Dane  County:
DIANE M. NICKS, Judge.   Affirmed.
Before Vergeront, Roggensack and Deininger, JJ.




No. 00-1906
¶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.
1  All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1999-2000 version unless otherwise
noted.
2




No. 00-1906
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published.   WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.
3

Download 2811.pdf

Wisconsin Law