The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently accepted several new cases. Cases of note include:

• Clean Wisconsin v. DNR. This case will decide whether 2011 Act 21 precludes the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from considering cumulative environmental impacts in issuing high capacity well permits under Wis. Stat. § 281.34. The Wisconsin legislature recently moved to intervene in this case and a second Clean Wisconsin case (discussed below).
• Clean Wisconsin v. DNR. This case will decide whether DNR has the authority as prescribed in Act 21 to impose off-site groundwater monitoring requirements and an animal maximum for CAFO wastewater permits.
• Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC v. Division of Hearings & Appeals. In this case, the court of appeals held that the enlargement of a nonconforming outdoor advertising sign along an interstate highway caused it to lose its nonconforming status, making it illegal and subject to removal. The Supreme Court will decide whether Wis. Stat. § 84.30(14) gives the Department of Transportation the authority to promulgate rules related to outdoor advertising and whether those rules and applicable statutes apply to the sign at issue. Court of appeals decision.
• Veritas Steel, LLC v. Lunda Construction Co. In this case, the Supreme Court will review a court of appeals decision maintaining a narrow application of the “de facto merger” and “mere continuation” exceptions to Wisconsin’s general rule against successor liability. The Supreme Court will review its decision in Fish v. Amsted Indus. Inc., determining 1) whether proof of identity of ownership between an original and successor entity is required to establish successor liability and 2) whether actual transfer of stock is required to establish successor liability under the de facto merger and mere continuation exceptions. Court of appeals decision.
• Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Great Lakes Quick Lube LB v. John Theisen. This case will decide whether the fraudulent transfer statute of limitations in Wis. Stat. § 893.425 begins when plaintiffs could reasonably have discovered the fraudulent nature of the transfer, or when the transfer itself occurred. Court of appeals decision.