On Point: 7. Contempt

City of Appleton v. Kylie M. Johnson, 2012AP1922, District 3, 2/12/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Jurisdiction of court – defects in truancy citation

Defects in an habitual truancy citation did not prevent court from obtaining personal jurisdiction over Johnson before it entered default judgment. She did not appear at the first hearing on the citation, so the court entered a default judgment against her;

Cesar Deleon v. Circuit Court for Brown County, 2012AP278, District 3, 10/10/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Summary Contempt, §§ 785.01(1)(a), 785.04(2)(b) – “Unit” of Sanctionable Conduct 

Separate, consecutive punishments meted out for each of 11 profane utterances and 1 act of spitting during brief exchange with judge upheld, against argument they “amounted only to a single act of contempt because they took place during a short period of time.”

Koch v. Neumann, 2010AP1531, District 3, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity; BiC; Resp.; Reply

The contemnor argues that a remedial sanction (30 days’ jail, stayed for 1 year conditioned on no further violations of prior judgment) imposed by the trial court was unsupported because the contemptuous conduct had already terminated. Although remedial sanctions are permissible only for continuing contempt,

Honorable Mark J. McGinnis v. Mario Jimenez, 2010AP2208, District 3, 1/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jiminez: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Jiminez BiC; State Resp.; Reply

The circuit court lacks authority to sanction a 17-year-old for failure to comply with conditions imposed for violating a local truancy ordinance.

¶4        Wisconsin Stat.

Clay Teasdale v. Marinette County Child Support Agency, 2009 WI App 152

Issue/Holding: Case specialist’s request to judge via affidavit and proposed order for remedial-contempt commitment was in fact if not form a “motion” and “was improper on numerous grounds”: it violated the §802.05(1) requirement that aside from pro se litigation motions must be signed by an attorney else must “be stricken”; it wasn’t filed with the clerk of circuit court,

Milton J. Christensen, et al. v. Sullivan, et al., 2009 WI 87, reversing 2008 WI App 18
For Christensen: Peter M. Koneazny, Patrick O. Patterson

Issue: Whether remedial contempt supports monetary sanction for past acts (here: intentional violations of jail-overcrowding consent decree) where the sanctionable conduct has terminated.

Holding: Remedial sanction, including monetary award, is limited to “continuing” contempt of court,

City of Milwaukee v. Ruby Washington, 2007 WI 104, affirming, 2006 WI App 99
For Washington: Wm. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Karl Otto Rohlich, SPD, Milwaukee Mental Health
Amicus: Colleen Ball, ACLU

Issue/Holding:

¶66      Moreover, we agree with Washington that remedial contempt was not an appropriate sanction in this case. A contemnor may be imprisoned “only so long as the person is committing the contempt of court.”

Evans v. Luebke, 2003 WI App 207, PFR filed 10/23/03

Issue/Holding: Contempt is an inherent judicial power, but is legislatively regulated, such that its exercise outside the statutory scheme is proscribed. ¶17. The required statutory procedure is determined by whether the contempt is remedial or punitive. The latter punishes past conduct for the purpose of upholding authority of the court, § 785.01(2) it may be brought only by a prosecutor (DA,