Hanson Trust v. ATC
Authored the majority. A disciplined eminent-domain ruling under Wisconsin's takings statute, § 32.09. Graham's authored output during the evaluation period was modest because of her administrative duties as Presiding Judge, but the opinion shows careful application of a complex compensation framework.
"Eminent domain" is when the government takes private property for public use and pays the owner. The case asked how much was owed. Wisconsin's law has a long set of rules for figuring out the fair price. Graham worked through the rules in order and applied them to the facts. The opinion does not break new ground, but it is the kind of careful, by-the-book work property owners deserve when the government takes their land.
State v. Schueller
Authored the majority. A sentence-modification case turning on whether a "new factor" justified reopening the original sentence. Routine but competently done—Graham worked through the controlling test and applied it to the record. The kind of opinion that does not generate headlines but moves the docket.
A defendant wanted his sentence reopened. Wisconsin allows that only if the defendant can show a "new factor" the judge did not know about at sentencing. Graham walked through the controlling test step by step. She applied it fairly and reached a clean result. Most appeals court work looks like this—not flashy, just steady and accurate.
State v. Ramirez (2024 WI App 28)
Authored the majority. A speedy-trial case where Graham's panel ruled for the defendant and overturned the trial court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed 5-2. Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley wrote that the panel had front-loaded one factor of the multi-part test as automatically "heavy" against the prosecution and overridden factual findings the trial court was best placed to make. The most significant Supreme Court correction of any District IV opinion this term.
A man serving a 40-year sentence for armed robbery attacked a corrections officer with a sharpened pencil. It took 46 months to bring him to trial—longer than any other Wisconsin case where a court found a speedy-trial violation. Graham's opinion broke the delay into eight periods, blamed the state for more than 31 of them, and ordered the charges dismissed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed in 2025. Five justices joined Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley's majority; the other two concurred in the result. The full court agreed Graham's panel had departed from the controlling test, treated the length of the delay as automatically heavy against the state, and overrode the trial judge's factual findings on questions the trial judge was best positioned to make. The 46-month delay was real. On the law, Graham got more wrong than right.
