On Point blog, page 3 of 17

COA holds that County sufficiently proved dangerousness in Chapter 51 extension hearing

Trempealeau County v. R.B., 2024AP1052, 12/10/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms, holding that the evidence of potential deterioration during commitment period justified extension order.

Read full article >

HUGE Defense Win: SCOW overrules S.L.L. and reverses default judgment in Chapter 51 appeal

Waukesha County v. M.A.C., 2024 WI 30, 7/5/24, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

In a big defense win, 6 justices agree that M.A.C. is entitled to relief, with four justices joining together to dismantle SCOW’s prior decision in S.L.L. with respect to notice and default judgment in Chapter 51 proceedings.

Read full article >

Defense Win! COA reverses recommitment order

Marathon County v. N.R.P., 2023AP638, 6/11/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another Chapter 51 reversal, COA finds fault with both the circuit court’s decision to admit and rely on hearsay evidence and its failure to make the required findings.

Read full article >

Despite serious criticisms of doctor’s testimony, COA affirms 51 extension and involuntary med orders given contents of report

Brown County v. R.J.M., 2024AP206, 5/7/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite the doctor’s imprecise and generic testimony, COA holds that admission of his report resolves any deficiencies in the record and affirms.

Read full article >

COA holds that evidence was sufficient for extension of underlying 2015 commitment order

Racine County v. P.Z., 2024AP146-FT, 5/1/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a relatively straightforward appeal of a recommitment order, COA rejects P.Z.’s sufficiency challenges and affirms.

Read full article >

Court rejects usual attacks to 51 extension, medication order and affirms

Racine County v. C.B., 2023AP2018-FT, 3/20/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a factually-specific appeal of a recommitment order, COA rejects all of C.B.’s arguments and affirms.

Read full article >

In a DJW loss, COA generates uncertainty about such claims

Waukesha County v. G.M.M., 2023AP1359, 3/13/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In an appeal presenting a straightforward D.J.W. claim, COA affirms while also giving credence to harmless error arguments.

Read full article >

COA rejects attempt to use plain error doctrine to challenge hearsay evidence in 51 appeal

Portage County v. D.P.W.O., 2023AP1975, 3/7/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another appeal challenging the use of hearsay statements contained within an examiner’s report, COA rejects D.P.W.O.’s attempt to use the plain error doctrine to prove that this unpreserved error merits reversal of the extension order.

Read full article >

Defense Win! Yet another DJW reversal

Winnebago County v. T.S., 2023AP1267, 3/6/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another 51 appeal attacking the sufficiency of the circuit court’s findings, COA rejects the County’s arguments and reverses.

Read full article >

COA rejects D.J.W. claim on barest of findings; continues handwringing about influx of Ch. 51 appeals

Winnebago County v. B.R.C., 2023AP1842, 2/14/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In quite the head-scratcher, the court of appeals rejects a D.J.W. “specific factual findings” claim while acknowledging that such claims “are multiplying and it is clear that all sides could benefit from clarity on the point.” (Emphasis added). The court then proceeds to offer a step-by-step guide guide for circuit courts to make D.J.W. findings that will be “less likely to be overturned on appeal.” While the circuit court’s findings at issue don’t come close to any such model of clarity, the court holds that they were “sufficient” to allow the court conduct a “meaningful review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion and the evidence presented at the hearing.” Op., ¶21

Read full article >