Follow Us

Facebooktwitter
≡ Menu

b. Time limits

Walworth County v. M.R.M., 2022AP140-FT, certification granted 9/14/22 case activity Issues (from the COA certification): 1. Does the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Waukesha County v. E.J.W., 2021 WI 85, ¶38, 399 Wis. 2d 471, 966 N.W.2d 590, apply retroactively or only or only prospectively? 2. In a ch. 51 case involving a petition to extend a commitment… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Walworth County v. M.R.M., 2022AP140-FT, certification filed 7/14/22, District 2; case activity 1. Does the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Waukesha County v. E.J.W., 2021 WI 85, ¶38, 399 Wis. 2d 471, 966 N.W.2d 590, have retroactive application or only prospective application? 2. In a ch. 51 case involving a petition to extend a commitment… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2022 WI 40, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity The crisp majority opinion of this 50-page split decision confirms a narrow but important point of law for ch. 51 cases. When an appellate court reverses a commitment order that has expired, the circuit court lacks competency to conduct… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Waukesha County v. E.J.W., 2021 WI 85, 11/23/21, reversing an unpublished court of appeals’ opinion; case activity This 4-3 “defense win” delivers a 1-2-3 punch! The decision:  (1) holds that a person undergoing commitment has the right to demand a jury 48 hours before the time set for his final hearing–even if the hearing is… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Waukesha County v. M.J.S., 20221AP105-FT, District 2, 7/28/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity Under § 51.20(11)(a), a demand for a jury trial must be made “48 hours in advance of the time set for final hearing,” if notice of final hearing was provided to the subject individual or his or her lawyer. Applying… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Eau claire County v. J.M.P., 2020AP2014, 5/25/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity Last term, SCOW ordered circuit courts deciding recommitment cases to make specific factual findings referencing the standard of dangerousness that supported a person’s recommitment. See Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶3, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Milwaukee County v. T.L.T, 2020AP426, District 1, 5/18/21 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity Two court-appointed examiners failed to file their reports on whether T.L.T. should be recommitted 48 hours before her final hearing. Trial counsel moved to dismiss arguing that the violation of §51.20(10)(b)’s 48-hour rule deprived the circuit court of competency to… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Rock County Department of Human Services v. J.E.B., 2020AP1954-FT, 4/7/21, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity Good news/bad news. It’s terrific that the court of appeals is going to enforce the new requirement that circuit courts ground their recommitment orders on factual findings tied to a specific standard of dangerousness in §51.20(1)(a)2.a-e. … Read more

{ 0 comments }