On Point blog, page 1 of 2
SCOW issues two opinions clarifying aspects of appellate procedure
In a set of non-criminal opinions, SCOW issues new guidance on the commonly-invoked rule that COA is not at liberty to disagree with its own precedents and also takes another run at clarifying when a final order is truly “final” for the purposes of appeal.
COA finds adequate notice and sufficient evidence in ch. 51 case; introduces confusion on finality of meds order
Winnebago County v. A.A.L., 2020AP1511, 3/24/2021, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
A.A.L. appeals her commitment under ch. 51. She claims the county didn’t give her adequate notice of which statutory forms of dangerousness it intended to prove, and that in any event it didn’t prove any of them. The court of appeals finds the notice argument forfeited (though it goes on to say it’s also unconvincing). And though it admonishes the county for presenting a bare-bones case and calls the question “close,” the court also holds the evidence of dangerousness sufficient for commitment.
Court of appeals addresses its jurisdiction over order denying only part of a postconviction motion
State v. Sean R. Wolfe and State v. Donald Ray Ward, 2019 WI App 32; case activity here and here .
¶1 We hold that under established principles of finality, when a circuit court denies a RULE 809.30 postconviction motion in part and grants the motion in part such that further proceedings are required, an appeal cannot be taken until those further proceedings are completed. Because the judgments of conviction and the circuit court orders from which these appeals are taken do not dispose of the entire matter in litigation between the parties, we lack jurisdiction.
Marcelo Manrique v. United States, USSC No. 15-7250, cert. granted 4/25/16
Question presented:
What are the jurisdictional prerequisites for appealing a deferred restitution award made during the pendency of a timely appeal of a criminal judgment imposing sentence, a question left open by the Court’s decision in Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010)?
Dane Co. DHS v. Mable K., 2011AP825, petition for review granted, 5/3/12
on review of summary order of court of appeals; for Mable K.: Brian C. Findley; case activity
TPR – Final Order – Appellate Standing
Issues (from Petition for Review):
I. When a trial court grants partial relief on remand in a Termination of Parental Rights appeal, is further appeal precluded by the ordinary rules of civil procedure?
II. Where the trial court determines that it denied the right to counsel during a TPR trial,
Appellate Jurisdiction – Final Order
Admiral Insurance Company v. Paper Converting Machine Co., 2012 WI 30; case activity
¶3 If we conclude that there is any ambiguity in an order or judgment about whether it disposes of the entire matter in litigation as to one or more of the parties, we will construe the ambiguity so as to preserve the right to appeal. …
…
¶26 We recently addressed what it means for a judgment or order to be final in Wambolt v.
Appellate Procedure: Traffic Forfeiture or Municipal Ordinance Appeal – Circuit Court Docket Entries Tantamount to Final Order
Village of McFarland v. Jennifer M. Zetzman, 2012 WI App 49 (recommended for publication); case activity
Appeal to the court of appeals of a municipal ordinance or traffic forfeiture disposition may be based on the circuit court docket entries instead of a written final order, whether the case originated in municipal or circuit court:
¶2 In this case, Jennifer Zetzman was convicted in municipal court of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration.
Recusal / Disqualification, Supreme Court Justice: Reviewability of Individual Decision
order denying motion for reconsideration of in: State v. Dimitri Henley, 2011 WI 67; for Henley: Keith A. Findley; case activity; additional history: 2010 WI 12 (memorandum decision, Roggensack, J.); court order (5/24/10)
Henley’s motion to reconsider, though directed formally to the decision reversing grant of new trial, as a practical matter is directed to reconsideration of Justice Roggensack’s prior refusal to disqualify herself (on the ground she had previously “handled”
Appellate Procedure – Finality and Appealability; § 806.07 Motion to Vacate
Evelyn Werner v. Kenneth Hendree, 2011 WI 10, reversing 2009 WI App 103; case activity
Appellate Procedure – Finality and Appealability
A circuit court order rejecting state indemnification of an employee being sued was non-final and thus absorbed in the final judgment later entered as to liability and damages.
¶62 An appeal may be taken as a matter of right only from a final judgment or a final order.
Appellate Procedure: Jurisdiction/Finality of Order – (State’s) Motion to Reconsider Oral Ruling
State v. Elizabeth A. White, 2008 WI App 96
For White: T Christopher Kelly
Issue/Holding: Jurisdiction attaches to state’s appeal from denial of reconsideration of an oral ruling dismissing a count, ¶7 n. 5:
The State appeals from the written order denying the motion for reconsideration. White, citing Ver Hagen v. Gibbons, 55 Wis. 2d 21, 25,