 Davis Updated 3/5/2020 to correct employment history. Live by the cut and paste, die by the cut and paste. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. WJI also will continue to profile former Gov. Scott Walker's appointees who are still in office. Name: Jeffrey O. Davis Appointed to: District II Court of Appeals Appointment date: Sept. 4, 2019. (Election scheduled for April 2021) Education: Law School – Ohio State University, Columbus, OH Undergraduate – Miami University, Oxford, OH High School – Nicolet High School Chagrin Falls High School, Chagrin, OH Recent legal employment: 1987 - present – Quarles & Brady law firm Bar and Administrative Memberships: U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin Supreme Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin General character of practice before becoming a judge: Member of Quarles & Brady commercial litigation and dispute resolution group; coordinating partner for pro bono practice. Focused on insurance, commercia and appellate law, unfair competition. Gained experience in criminal, family, landlord/tenant, misdemeanor and domestic abuse matters through court appointments and pro bono work. Describe typical clients: Businesses involved in disputes with their insurance carriers; also employees and employers in matters involving covenants not to compete, trade secrets and unfair competition matters. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Six cases to a jury verdict. List up to five cases in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: Menasha Corp. v. Continental Insurance, et al. – This was a complex insurance coverage case involving multiple insurers, pertaining to defense and coverage issues surrounding the Fox River clean-up. I represented Menasha as lead attorney on the case. Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Traveler's Insurance, et al. – This was another complex insurance coverage action, for asbestos liability, involving multiple insurers and numerous coverage issues. The case settled following a series of favorable summary judgment rulings. I represented Harley-Davidson as lead attorney on the case. Foxwood Estates Homeowners Associationn v. Foxwood Estates, LLC – This was a three week jury trial tried to verdict in 2001, but with the verdict sealed due to a contingent settlement. The settlement fell through, the verdict was opened and judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff Homeowners Ass'n. The case went up on appeal to District II where the verdict was affirmed in 2015. I was lead attorney for the plaintiff Homeowners Ass'n at trial and on appeal. Menasha Corporation v. Pratt Industries, et al. – This was an action for an injunction and damages against multiple former Menasha employees for breach of restrictive covenants and against their current employer for tortious interference and unfair competition. Following issuance of an injunction the case settled. I was lead counsel for the plaintiff Menasha. Anderson v. Aul – This was a case involving the issue as to whether Wis. Stat. sec. 632.26 (the notice prejudice statute) required a showing of actual prejudice before coverage would be lost for late notice under a "claims-made and reported" insurance policy. I was lead coverage counsel for the Andersons, who were seeking coverage in an attorney malpractice case under the direct action statute. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: None. Previous runs for political office: Ran unopposed for Fox Point village trustee in 2006. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None listed. All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last six years: Lisa Neubauer, Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Andrew Jones, Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Rebecca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court. Michael Fitzpatrick, Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Professional or civic and charitable organizations: State Bar of Wisconsin, Appellate Practice Section, chair, member, treasurer State Bar of Wisconsin, high school mock trial, Milwaukee regional coordinator Milwaukee Bar Foundation, Board member Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Milwaukee, Board member Milwaukee Tennis & Education Foundation, Board member COA Youth and Family Centers, Board member Fox Point Foundation, Treasurer and Board member Elected or appointed public offices: Fox Point Village Board, March 2007-January 2009 – elected Fox Point Board of Ethics, approximately 2009-present – appointed Fox Point Board of Appeals (alternate), approximately 2016-present – appointed Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Pro bono has been a significant part of my practice and for the past several years I have been the pro bono coordinating partner for Quarles' Milwaukee office. My most significant pro bono matter was a death penalty case that I litigated for 21 years (1992-2013), including a week long evidentiary hearing, two appeals to the Florida Supreme Court, two appeals to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and multiple certiorari petitions to the United States Supreme Court. Aside from coordinating the firm's MiIwaukee pro bono efforts, which are extensive, I am personally involved In a number of our pro bono programs, including the Eviction Defense Project, the Parent Mediation Conferences, the Pro Se Appellate Help Desk, and numerous court appointments, including many taken by appointment from the Appellate Division of the State of Wisconsin Public Defender's Office, the Seventh Circuit and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Involvement in business interests: None listed Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – Taking on the role of a judge would take the concept of service to a new and different level, one where I would have the privilege to serve our state, and its system of justice as a whole, on a daily basis. I believe I would find that aspect of the position highly rewarding.... So why an appellate court position, rather than, say, a trial court position? I think the answer lies in a completely different aspect of my personality – which is a deep and abiding fascination with the law itself, the process by which it is made and applied, and the intellectual challenge presented by grappling with legal issues.... As I’ve thought about this question (which of course I carefully considered for my own purposes long before seeing it on this application) the fundamental property law principle of “highest and best use” comes to mind. People are not property, but there are, I think, some appropriate parallels. I believe most people are fundamentally happiest when they can put their skills and abilities to their highest and best use. For me, at this point in time, I believe that use to be a judicial position on an appellate court. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had the greatest positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin or our democracy. I wish I could say that Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), tops this list, and indeed it would be my top choice for decisions that have had the most positive impact, as I cannot think of a decision in the past 25 years that has done more to bring such a large segment of the population so firmly into the mainstream of society. But, unfortunately, my vote for overall most significant decision falls on the negative side of the ledger, as it goes to a decision – ironically authored by the same justice who penned the majority in Obergefell, Anthony Kennedy – that presents a threat to the proper workings of, and at the very least the people’s confidence in, the democratic system through the power of money. That decision, of course, is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Citizens United not only squelched Congress’s burgeoning, laudable, and improbably bi-partisan attempt to put controls over big money spending on elections, but mostly ends such controls for as long as the decision remains on the books. I am not a Constitutional scholar, and will not (and cannot in a 500 page essay anyway) get fully into the weeds of the First Amendment dimensions that led to the majority decision other than to say that arguments can be made on all the various sides of this issue, as demonstrated by the various majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in the case, as well as the precedent that the case overruled. The bottom line is that the decision has had a destructive effect on the democratic process, as it perpetuates a less than level playing field that, in my opinion, Congress had every right to, and did address within the confines of the First Amendment as construed by decades of precedent. I recently heard Justice Kennedy speak and he warned about the fragility of democracy. He’s right. Unfortunately, at least in this case, the uniquely powerful position he was in to protect this amazing institution was, in my view, misapplied. Identify two or three judges or justices whom you admire and explain why – Honorable John Reynolds. The late John Reynolds was a former attorney general, governor, and federal district court judge for 37 years who I appeared before many times, including a week long jury trial I handled on my own early in my career. While Judge Reynolds possessed a fine intellect, and very good legal mind, more than anything else he exemplified the value of pragmatism, common sense and empathy that a judge also needs in order to be truly successful. The example set by Judge Reynolds should be a reminder to judges and justices at every level that the decisions they make affect real people and have real consequences. Justice John Marshall Harlan. About a year ago, I had occasion to read, for probably the first time since law school, Justice John Marshall Harlan’s famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), and it caused me to consider again just how remarkable it was, made all the more so by the fact that Justice Harlan was a one-time slaveholder and no model of racial equality, in some sense a man of his time. While I am not a historian, I am fascinated by how the world’s moral order has evolved over the course of time, and in particular how that evolution has, with notable fits and starts and only over the long run, inexorably veered toward a more progressive and tolerant society. A Martin Luther King Jr. quote, recently invoked by President Obama, captures this sentiment perfectly: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but bends towards justice.” Obviously as society changes, as the arc bends that way, the law will inevitably change with it. But for those living at any given time, it takes prescience, a mind that is open to change, and very often great courage, to be a force for this change. The first Justice Harlan, the “great dissenter” (he actually had several other dissents that over time were proven the better view), has become a magnificent example of this and the circumstances of his life make his example all the more compelling, as it shows how a judge can rise above his or her inherent biases and contemporary societal mores to “do the right thing.” Of course, doing the “right thing” is not a mere morality play – the other justices in Plessy no doubt believed they were doing the “right thing” in ruling that “separate but equal” was Constitutionally acceptable. What seems obvious today, but was not then, was the insight that “separate” was not, and could never be, Constitutionally “equal”, and the idea of it highly destructive to a well-functioning and cohesive society. While “separate but equal” has long been condemned as wrong, the qualities it took for a Supreme Court Justice to say so in 1896 cause the Plessy dissent to remain aspirational for all of us, and especially judges, today. Describe the proper role of a judge – I’ve heard it said that the role of a judge is to “apply the law as written” – almost as if a judge’s job could be reduced to something as simple as saying what the law is, stamping it to the dispute before him or her, and moving on to the next case. Perhaps there are cases that can be disposed of that easily, but most – at least those where parties have expended the time and resources necessary to take an appeal – are more complicated than that. The “apply the law” mantra is, frankly, a bit of a cop out – a judge is not a bureaucrat. That is because there are always nuances and shades of gray, which of course is what makes the process so fascinating.... A better answer, at least to me, is to say that a judge’s role is to “dispense justice”, but of course that’s not really satisfactory either. Only by answering the question what does “dispense justice” mean can one get to a philosophy that begins to be helpful. For me, dispensing justice means being faithful both to the law (whether one agrees with it or not) and the record before the court, understanding that this will inevitably require judgment calls as to the meaning of a term in the statute or instrument before the court, a passage in a case, or reading of testimonypoints that are not always easily judged. In making those judgment calls dispensing justice means being intellectually honest, thoughtful and thorough, cognizant of public policy and long term consequences, and most of all independent and neutral, so as not to base one’s decision on the party or position that is more popular, or more likeable. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: None. Previous runs for political office: Ran unopposed for Fox Point village trustee in 2006. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None listed. All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last six years: Lisa Neubauer, Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Andrew Jones, Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Rebecca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court. Michael Fitzpatrick, Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Professional or civic and charitable organizations: State Bar of Wisconsin, Appellate Practice Section, chair, member, treasurer State Bar of Wisconsin, high school mock trial, Milwaukee regional coordinator Milwaukee Bar Foundation, Board member Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Milwaukee, Board member Milwaukee Tennis & Education Foundation, Board member COA Youth and Family Centers, Board member Fox Point Foundation, Treasurer and Board member Elected or appointed public offices: Fox Point Village Board, March 2007-January 2009 – elected Fox Point Board of Ethics, approximately 2009-present – appointed Fox Point Board of Appeals (alternate), approximately 2016-present – appointed Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Pro bono has been a significant part of my practice and for the past several years I have been the pro bono coordinating partner for Quarles' Milwaukee office. My most significant pro bono matter was a death penalty case that I litigated for 21 years (1992-2013), including a week long evidentiary hearing, two appeals to the Florida Supreme Court, two appeals to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and multiple certiorari petitions to the United States Supreme Court. Aside from coordinating the firm's MiIwaukee pro bono efforts, which are extensive, I am personally involved In a number of our pro bono programs, including the Eviction Defense Project, the Parent Mediation Conferences, the Pro Se Appellate Help Desk, and numerous court appointments, including many taken by appointment from the Appellate Division of the State of Wisconsin Public Defender's Office, the Seventh Circuit and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Involvement in business interests: None listed Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – But taking on the role of a judge would take the concept of service to a new and different level, one where I would have the privilege to serve our state, and its system of justice as a whole, on a daily basis. I believe I would find that aspect of the position highly rewarding.... So why an appellate court position, rather than, say, a trial court position? I think the answer lies in a completely different aspect of my personality – which is a deep and abiding fascination with the law itself, the process by which it is made and applied, and the intellectual challenge presented by grappling with legal issues.... As I’ve thought about this question (which of course I carefully considered for my own purposes long before seeing it on this application) the fundamental property law principle of “highest and best use” comes to mind. People are not property, but there are, I think, some appropriate parallels. I believe most people are fundamentally happiest when they can put their skills and abilities to their highest and best use. For me, at this point in time, I believe that use to be a judicial position on an appellate court. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had the greatest positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin or our democracy. I wish I could say that Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), tops this list, and indeed it would be my top choice for decisions that have had the most positive impact, as I cannot think of a decision in the past 25 years that has done more to bring such a large segment of the population so firmly into the mainstream of society. But, unfortunately, my vote for overall most significant decision falls on the negative side of the ledger, as it goes to a decision – ironically authored by the same justice who penned the majority in Obergefell, Anthony Kennedy – that presents a threat to the proper workings of, and at the very least the people’s confidence in, the democratic system through the power of money. That decision, of course, is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Citizens United not only squelched Congress’s burgeoning, laudable, and improbably bi-partisan attempt to put controls over big money spending on elections, but mostly ends such controls for as long as the decision remains on the books. I am not a Constitutional scholar, and will not (and cannot in a 500 page essay anyway) get fully into the weeds of the First Amendment dimensions that led to the majority decision other than to say that arguments can be made on all the various sides of this issue, as demonstrated by the various majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in the case, as well as the precedent that the case overruled. The bottom line is that the decision has had a destructive effect on the democratic process, as it perpetuates a less than level playing field that, in my opinion, Congress had every right to, and did address within the confines of the First Amendment as construed by decades of precedent. I recently heard Justice Kennedy speak and he warned about the fragility of democracy. He’s right. Unfortunately, at least in this case, the uniquely powerful position he was in to protect this amazing institution was, in my view, misapplied. The “apply the law” mantra is, frankly, a bit of a cop out – a judge is not a bureaucrat. – District II Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey O. Davis Identify two or three judges or justices whom you admire and explain why –
Honorable John Reynolds. The late John Reynolds was a former attorney general, governor, and federal district court judge for 37 years who I appeared before many times, including a week long jury trial I handled on my own early in my career. While Judge Reynolds possessed a fine intellect, and very good legal mind, more than anything else he exemplified the value of pragmatism, common sense and empathy that a judge also needs in order to be truly successful. The example set by Judge Reynolds should be a reminder to judges and justices at every level that the decisions they make affect real people and have real consequences. Justice John Marshall Harlan. About a year ago, I had occasion to read, for probably the first time since law school, Justice John Marshall Harlan’s famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), and it caused me to consider again just how remarkable it was, made all the more so by the fact that Justice Harlan was a one-time slaveholder and no model of racial equality, in some sense a man of his time. While I am not a historian, I am fascinated by how the world’s moral order has evolved over the course of time, and in particular how that evolution has, with notable fits and starts and only over the long run, inexorably veered toward a more progressive and tolerant society. A Martin Luther King Jr. quote, recently invoked by President Obama, captures this sentiment perfectly: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but bends towards justice.” Obviously as society changes, as the arc bends that way, the law will inevitably change with it. But for those living at any given time, it takes prescience, a mind that is open to change, and very often great courage, to be a force for this change. The first Justice Harlan, the “great dissenter” (he actually had several other dissents that over time were proven the better view), has become a magnificent example of this and the circumstances of his life make his example all the more compelling, as it shows how a judge can rise above his or her inherent biases and contemporary societal mores to “do the right thing.” Of course, doing the “right thing” is not a mere morality play – the other justices in Plessy no doubt believed they were doing the “right thing” in ruling that “separate but equal” was Constitutionally acceptable. What seems obvious today, but was not then, was the insight that “separate” was not, and could never be, Constitutionally “equal”, and the idea of it highly destructive to a well-functioning and cohesive society. While “separate but equal” has long been condemned as wrong, the qualities it took for a Supreme Court Justice to say so in 1896 cause the Plessy dissent to remain aspirational for all of us, and especially judges, today. Describe the proper role of a judge – I’ve heard it said that the role of a judge is to “apply the law as written”almost as if a judge’s job could be reduced to something as simple as saying what the law is, stamping it to the dispute before him or her, and moving on to the next case. Perhaps there are cases that can be disposed of that easily, but most – at least those where parties have expended the time and resources necessary to take an appeal – are more complicated than that. The “apply the law” mantra is, frankly, a bit of a cop out – a judge is not a bureaucrat. That is because there are always nuances and shades of gray, which of course is what makes the process so fascinating.... A better answer, at least to me, is to say that a judge’s role is to “dispense justice”, but of course that’s not really satisfactory either. Only by answering the question what does “dispense justice” mean can one get to a philosophy that begins to be helpful. For me, dispensing justice means being faithful both to the law (whether one agrees with it or not) and the record before the court, understanding that this will inevitably require judgment calls as to the meaning of a term in the statute or instrument before the court, a passage in a case, or reading of testimonypoints that are not always easily judged. In making those judgment calls dispensing justice means being intellectually honest, thoughtful and thorough, cognizant of public policy and long term consequences, and most of all independent and neutral, so as not to base one’s decision on the party or position that is more popular, or more likeable. Comments are closed.
|
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed