Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

d. Can’t meet needs

Milwaukee County v. I.K., 2017AP1425, District 1, 5/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity The County proved I.K. was dangerous under both § 51.20(1)(a)2.d., by showing there was a substantial probability I.K. would suffer physical harm resulting from his inability to satisfy basic needs due to mental illness, and § 51.20(1)(a)2.e., by showing that, after being advised… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Evidence supported dangerousness finding

Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2017AP1313-FT, District 3, 11/7/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity There was sufficient evidence at D.J.W.’s commitment trial to establish he met the standard for dangerousness under § 51.20(1)(a)2.d. D.J.W. argues the evidence wasn’t sufficient to establish a recent failure to care for himself or a probability of imminent harm if he… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Evidence sufficient to support Ch. 51 commitment

Kenosha County v. CMM, 2015AP504, 9/23/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity Like many Chapter 51 appeals, this one didn’t challenge any legal standards. It argued that the evidence in this particular case did not meet the test for “dangerousness” in §51.20(1)(a)2.d. The court of appeals found the evidence more than sufficient. ¶8… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Milwaukee County v. Cheri V., 2012AP1737, District 1, 12/18/12  court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity   Mental health commitment, § 51.20, requires proof of mental illness and dangerousness. Cheri V. limits this challenge to the latter; the court agrees: ¶7        As seen from our recitation of the facts adduced at the trial… Read More

{ 0 comments }