On Point blog, page 3 of 34
COA rejects challenges to extension and medication orders and affirms another Chapter 51
Racine County v. C.D.B., 2024AP1195, 2/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In “Banks’s” most recent appeal, he once again challenges the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to his extension and medication orders. Like his last appeal, however, those arguments go nowhere.
COA once again holds that a colloquy is not required before a person stipulates to a mental commitment order
Sheboygan County v. N.A.L., 2024AP1195, 2/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 5/21/25 case activity
In yet another appeal asking COA to clarify the procedure for accepting a stipulation to a mental commitment, COA refuses N.A.L.’s invitation to issue a precedential opinion and affirms based largely on a prior unpublished decision.
COA holds that County sufficiently proved dangerousness under second standard
Trempealeau County v. C.B.O., 2024AP1520-FT, 2/4/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms, holding that the evidence of a verbal threat to kill someone, and “Carl’s” actions during a subsequent police chase, were both sufficient to establish dangerousness under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.b.
In potentially consequential 51 appeal, COA suggests DJW errors can be cured during postconviction proceedings
Waupaca County v. A.L.H., 2024AP1526, 1/30/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
While many litigators may have believed the issue of a remedy for a D.J.W. violation had been clarified by SCOW, COA holds that recent precedent does not preclude a circuit court from making the required findings during postconviction proceedings.
Defense wins (in part) when COA reverses involuntary medication order, but affirms extending commitment under Ch. 51.
Price County v. C.N.S., 2024AP853, District III, 1/22/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Appellant CNS wins a battle but loses the war as the COA affirms the circuit court’s order extending her commitment under Ch. 51, but reverses order authorizing involuntary medication. The Court clarified that a circuit court meets D.J.W.’s requirement to make a specific factual finding with reference to the subparagraph of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based if the circuit court’s oral ruling referred to the wording of the statute, even if the court did not cite the specific subparagraph.
COA affirms order authorizing involuntary medication under ch. 51 where, contrary to the evidence, appellant denies mental illness.
Dane County v. M.A.A., 2024AP1589, 12/27/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order authorizing involuntarily administering medication to M.A.A. in light of evidence that M.A.A. denies he has a mental illness.
Defense Wins: COA reverses Chapter 51 commitment for insufficient evidence of dangerousness.
Monroe County v. M.C., 2024AP924, 12/12/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s commitment order under Chapter 51 where the court did not make sufficient factual findings to support its conclusion that M.C. was dangerous, as required by D.J.W.
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.
COA affirms 51.20 commitment for alcoholism as matter of first impression
Vernon County v. F.W.R., 2024AP203, District IV, 11/6/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects F.W.R.’s challenges to his involuntary commitment order under Wis. Stat. § 51.20 for alcohol dependence, concluding that a person may be involuntarily committed for treatment for alcoholism, the circuit court followed the proper procedures and the county met its burden to prove that he was drug dependent and dangerous.
COA rejects challenges to commitment under the 51.20(1)(a)2.b. dangerousness standard
Waukesha County v. M.D.S., Jr., 2024AP1315, District II, 11/6/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects “Smith’s” challenges raising commonly-litigated appellate issues and affirms in this chapter 51 case, concluding that the circuit court applied the correct legal standard and the county met its burden to show that Smith was dangerous under sub. 2.b.