Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Advanced Search

  • Category:


Found 6481 Results
Page 1 of 811

Family court order denying placement didn’t need to advise parent of conditions for return

November 10, 2019

G.K. v. S.C., 2019AP1645, 2019AP1646, & 2019AP1647, District 4, 11/7/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity S.C.’s parental rights to her three children were terminated due to continued denial of periods of physical placement under § 48.415(4) based on a family court order that denied her periods of physical placement. She argued the family […]

Read More...


Default judgment in TPR affirmed

State v. C.M., 2019AP1483, District 1, 11/5/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity The circuit court didn’t err in entering a default judgment against C.M. in her termination of parental rights proceeding. 

Read More...


COA affirms TPR of incarcerated parent

Waupaca County v. J.J., 2019AP805, 10/29/19, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity J.J. challenges the termination of his parental rights, alleging trial counsel was ineffective and lack of a factual basis for his no contest plea. The court of appeals rejects both claims.

Read More...


October 2019 publication list

November 2, 2019

On October 30, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision: State v. Amy Joan Zahurones, 2019 WI App 57 (defendant entitled to credit under § 973.155 toward sentence imposed after revocation of deferred entry of judgment agreement)

Read More...


Federal judge’s ex parte emails with prosecutor’s office created appearance of bias

United States v. James Atwood, No. 18-2113 (7th Cir. Oct. 24, 2019) Atwood is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the judge in his case was communicating ex parte with the prosecutor’s office about other cases, and the content of the correspondence invited doubt about the judge’s impartiality in proceedings involving the prosecutor’s office.

Read More...


No expert on dangerousness? No problem! (If you’re the state at a ch. 980 discharge hearing)

State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2018AP2104, District 3, 10/29/19 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) At a hearing on a committed person’s petition for discharge from a ch. 980 commitment, the state has the burden of proving the person is still a sexually violent person—that is, that the person: (1) has a mental disorder; […]

Read More...


Officer’s urge to “search for the truth” doesn’t justify an extension of a traffic stop

October 31, 2019

State v. Tunis Jay LeFever, 2019AP702-CR, District 2, 10/30/19, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) An officer stopped LeFever for speeding, noticed that he had bloodshot eyes, and detected a faint odor of alcohol but wasn’t sure of the source. He asked LeFever to complete field sobriety tests. The officer noted indicators […]

Read More...


COA: ch. 51 jury doesn’t have to agree on whether you’re dangerous to self, others, etc.

Sauk County v. R.A.S., 2018AP2253, 10/31/2019, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity R.A.S. was committed after a ch. 51 jury trial. The county alleged and the court instructed on two forms of dangerousness–those in Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.c. and 2.d.. R.A.S. asked that the verdict form require the jury to agree on […]

Read More...


Page 1 of 811