Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

8. Appeals

Milwaukee County v. A.J.G., 2021AP1338, 5/3/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity When a circuit court orders a ch. 51 recommitment, it must specify which standard of dangerousness the patient will satisfy if treatment is withdrawn. Langlade County. v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶40, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 941 N.W.2d 277. This… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2021AP6, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21; case activity Issue Presented (composed by On Point) What is the proper remedy when, in a ch. 51 recommitment proceeding, the circuit court fails to make specific factual findings with reference to the statutory basis for its determination… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Shawano County v. S.L.V., 2021AP223, District 3, 8/17/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, requires a circuit court to make specific fact findings about dangerousness at a ch. 51 commitment hearing. The circuit court didn’t do that in this case… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Sheboygan County v. M.J.M., 2020AP1744, 6/9/21, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity This is new. M.J.M. appealed a recommitment order which expired during the course of his appeal. The usual kerfuffle regarding mootness ensued but this time (unlike here and here) the court of appeals acknowledged that the issue of whether recommitment… 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 }

Milwaukee County v. K.M., 2019AP1166, 4/13/21, District 1; (1-judge opinion ineligible for publication); case activity The saga continues. Portage County v. E.R.R. 2019AP20133 presented the question of whether appeals from recommitment orders are ever moot due to their collateral effects. When SCOW split 3-3 in that case, it granted review in Sauk County v. S.A.M… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Bad news, good news on Chapter 51 appeals

The moment Chapter 51 lawyers have been waiting for has . . . been postponed.  This term SCOW was set to decide whether appeals from expired recommitment orders are ever moot. See our post on Portage County v. E.R.R., 2019AP20133. After briefing and oral argument (in which Justice Anne Walsh Bradley did not participate), SCOW… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Sauk County v. S.A.M., 2019AP1033, petition for review granted 2/24/21; case activity Issues for review: 1. Whether S.A.M.’s appeal from his recommitment is moot because it expired before S.A.M. filed his notice of appeal. 2. Whether the county failed to meet its burden of proving dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. 3. Whether S.A.M. was… Read more

{ 0 comments }