Skip to main content
Scott Kenneth Petersen

Scott Petersen’s Legal Cases

5 total

  • In re Attorney Fees in Kohl v. Zeitlin

    Practice Area:
    Family
    Date:
    Oct 03, 2005
    Outcome:
    Affirmed
    Description:
    Trial court's ruling that my law firm was entitled to an award of attorney's fees upon our withdrawal from representation of Plaintiff was affirmed on appeal. http://www.wislawjournal.com/archive/2005/0817/fees.html
  • Janice Locascio Raclaw v. Snavely Siesta Associates, LLC

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Outcome:
    Jury verdict for the Defendant
    Description:
    Plaintiff claimed that our client promised her an unobstructed view of the Bay from her 3rd floor condo. Even though such promise was not contained in the text of the contract, the court ruled that the contract incorporated a sales brochure that discussed Bay views. Plaintiff argued that the real estate agent negligently represented that the 3rd floor would be above the tree line and that the sales brochure contained a promise of an unobstructed Bay view. Jury found for our client on both the breach of contract and negligent representation claims. A motion for JNOV and new trial by Plaintiff is now pending.
  • Hrubes et al. v. Hrubes et al.

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Jul 01, 2005
    Outcome:
    Judgment for Plaintiffs
    Description:
    My clients owned a land-locked parcel next to their cousins', the Defendants', property. The only access to a public road was via a drive contstructed across the Defendants' property. A dispute arose between the parties and Defendants began constructing fences and gates that limited the Plaintiffs' access to their property. Plaintiffs' sued for an easement by necessity. Defendants' claimed that Plaintiffs could construct their own driveway to a public road, but such would involve building a bridge over a creekbed and travelling up an 8% incline and back down again through a wooded area at a very substantial cost. Judgment for Plaintiffs.
  • In the Estate of Theodore C. Becker

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Outcome:
    Final Determination of Heirship
    Description:
    Theodore Becker died in December 2000, with an estate worth almost eighteen million dollars. In his will, Becker bequeathed his entire estate to his mother. Becker's mother predeceased him by 25 years, and thus, the estate was scheduled for distribution according to Wisconsin's intestate succession scheme. No closely related heirs-at-law were living, and extensive efforts ensued to determine whether other legal heirs existed. A genealogical chart prepared on behalf of some of the known claimants indicated that Becker's mother, Sophia, who had immigrated to the United States in the late 1800s, had some siblings who had at one time lived in Lithuania and Latvia, but whose issue were unknown. Over the next two years, various individuals filed claims to the estate. Various issues cropped up during the case, including the accuracy and reliability of records obtained from Latvia, the propriety and legality of mitochondrial DNA testing to aid in determining heirship, exhumation of the deceased in order to obtain genetic samples, proper legal notice to domiciliaries of foreign countries regarding heirship proceedings, and the entitlement of heirs to reimbursement for attorney's fees, among others. There were approximately 48 heirs identified, and the case went through an interlocutory appeal, as well as an appeal after the final judgment on an ancillary issue.
  • School Board of Manatee County v. Bay Oaks, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Outcome:
    Judgment for Plaintiff
    Description:
    Eminent domain case on behalf of school board for two strips of land, approximately 50 ft wide and 300 ft long each, owned by subdivision but which abutted a middle school's athletic fields and parking lot. Defendants claimed the land was worth at least $300,000. Our expert said his conservative estimate was that the land was worth $66,000 because the easements, restrictions and size of the lots made them impossible to develop for residential purposes. The judge agreed with our expert and set the value at $66,000.