On Point

State v. Natalie S. Lozano, 2024AP1540-CR & 2024AP1541-CR, 4/9/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another appeal hinging on the requirement that a license plate be “legible,” COA affirms based on its deference to the circuit court’s factual findings.

Monroe County v. G.L.B., 2024AP1596, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Monroe County v. T.B., 2024AP1845, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA issued two decisions affirming the circuit court’s dispositional orders finding that T.B.’s (the mother) and G.L.B.’s (the father) son was in need of protection and services (CHIPS) and placing the child in out-of-home care.  The COA rejected the parents’ arguments that the circuit court erroneously denied their petition to transfer jurisdiction to Ho-Chunk Tribal Court and that the court erred in granting medical decision-making authority to the Monroe County Department of Human Services (the Department).  The COA also disagreed with the father’s argument that the circuit court erroneously admitted at trial evidence regarding risk assessments of his parenting skills.

Waukesha County v. A.T., 2025AP167, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Amber” appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her 6-year-old daughter, “Holly.” She argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition. COA affirms under the deferential, erroneous exercise of discretion standard.

J.H. v. J.L.B., 2025AP85, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA reviews the grant of summary judgment on abandonment and failure to assume parental rights de novo and concludes that there are issues of material fact as to each ground. The court therefore reverses and remands for a fact-finding hearing.

S.G. v. Wisconsin DCF, 2024AP472, 4/3/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In a unique CHIPS appeal, COA clarifies the proper role of corporation counsel when another party files a CHIPS petition.

Brown County v. N.H., 2024AP1991-1993, 4/2/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Although the County erred by listing the wrong date in a published notice, COA affirms given the court’s factual findings that the respondent was served by mail.

State v. Anthony J. LaRose, 2022AP647-CR, District 3, 3/25/25 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

LaRose appeals an order denying his postconviction motion for resentencing on his conviction for first-degree sexual assault of a child, in which he claimed that the circuit court judge was biased against him based on three sets of facts. COA rejects all of LaRose’s arguments and affirms, holding that the court’s comments were related to appropriate sentencing factors and LaRose failed to establish sufficient risk of actual bias.

Isaiah Taylor v. Justin Schwarzhuber, No. 23-3151, 3/17/25

In a rare win, Taylor will have another chance to prove that MPD officers violated his rights when they seized him while he was out delivering a Christmas turkey to a friend.

In their dissents from an order denying cert, two justices leave a trail of breadcrumbs for litigators frustrated by the discordant state of the law with respect to the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause.

Glossip v. Oklahoma, USSC No. 22-7466, 2/25/2025; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

In a 5-3 defense win, the legal system finally yields to the prosecutor’s concession that Glossip is entitled to a new trial.