Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

39. Statutes

Ramos v. Louisiana, USSC No. 18-5924, 2020 WL 1906545, 4/20/20, reversing State v. Ramos, 231 So. 3d 44 (La. Ct. Apps. 2017); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary) The holding in this case has no relevance to Wisconsin practitioners, or indeed anyone outside of Louisiana or Oregon–the only two jurisdictions permitting 10-2 guilty… Read More

{ 2 comments }

State v. A.A., 2020 WI App 11; case activity Wisconsin Stat. § 938.355(6)(d)1. sets a maximum length of “not more than 10 days” for a custody sanction that a circuit court may impose on a juvenile who has violated a dispositional order. Is that 10 calendar days? Or, as the state argues, does “day” mean 24… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Dane County D.H.S. v. J.R., 2020 WI App 5; case activity J.R.’s children were placed outside the home pursuant to two CHIPS cases. During the placement, the legislature changed the 4th element for the “continuing CHIPS” ground for termination of parental rights. When the County petitioned to terminate J.R.’s rights, it proceeded under the amended… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Matthew Hinkle, 2019 WI 96, 11/12/19, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2017AP1416, case activity (including briefs) We’ve posted on this case twice before, first on the published court of appeals decision and then on the supreme court’s grant of the petition for review. The question is easily posed: the statute says… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Keith H. Shoeder, 2019 WI App 60; case activity (including briefs) So if you’re going to drink and drive your riding mower, stay on your lawn. Shoeder drove his riding mower on the paved shoulder of a city street, and was stopped and arrested for OWI in violation of § 346.63 after police… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Winnebago County v. C.S., 2016AP1982, petition for review of a published court of appeals opinion granted 8/15/19; case activity Issue: Does Wis. Stat. §51.61(1)(g) violate substantive due process because it does not require a finding of dangerousness to involuntarily medicate a prisoner? This is an important case.  According to SCOTUS, the government may not administer… Read More

{ 1 comment }

Ludicrous is not the same thing as absurd

State v. Medford B. Matthews, III, 2019 WI App 44; case activity (including briefs) It’s a crime in Wisconsin to have sex with a person under 18. Specifically, it’s a misdemeanor, if that person is 16 or older—like the 17-and-a-half-year-old alleged victim here. But, it’s tough to have sex without (1) being in a private… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Rehaif v. United States, USSC No. 17-9560, 2019 WL 2552487, June 21, 2019, reversing 888 F.3d 1138 (11th Cir. 2018); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary) Federal law bans certain classes of people from possessing guns, and provides stiff penalties (up to ten years in prison if there are no enhancers) if they… Read More

{ 0 comments }