On Point: Uncategorized

Washburn County v. D.C.R., 2024AP2443-FT, 7/8/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

While D.C.R. wins some minor victories in this appeal, ultimately COA rejects his sufficiency challenges and affirms.

In this appeal from an order continuing a protective placement after an annual review, COA addresses two sufficiency challenges:

Primary Need for Residential Care and Custody

Under the statute, the County needed to prove that “Dwight” had “a primary need for residential care and custody.” § 55.08(1)(a).

Josh Kaul, et al., v. Joel Urmanski, et al., 2025 WI 32, 7/2/25, on bypass from COA; case activity

In a long-awaited decision, SCOW holds that a criminal statute forbidding abortion cannot be enforced under the doctrine of implied repeal.

Sheboygan County v. N.A.L., 2024AP1195, petition for review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, granted 5/12/25; affirmed 5/19/26;  case activity

In yet another interesting Chapter 51 appeal, SCOW signals its willingness to resolve whether a colloquy is required before accepting a stipulation to an involuntary mental commitment order (and accompanying involuntary med order)–an issue which has recurred since 2005.

March was another slow month, but brought a couple of cases potentially relevant to our practice with respect to a delayed search of a cell phone, the use of suggestive lineups, the constitutionality of laws governing short-barreled rifles, and an argument that the Sixth Amendment applies to criminal restitution orders:

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.

State v. K.R.C., 2023AP2102, petition for review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, granted 3/13/25; affirmed 3/26/26; case activity

In a case that could prove consequential for the rights of juveniles in schools policed by “school resource officers,” SCOW accepts review of a case taking direct aim at the court of appeals’ reading of the “reasonable person” standard in constitutional law.

There has been a real paucity of relevant cases from the Seventh. We keep saving this article and hoping more could be added, but until things heat up again, we thought we’d share these cases from the last few months that might be relevant to our readers.

Burnett County v. B.S., 2023AP1811-FT, 2/28/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Due in part to last-minute witness unavailability, the County’s attempt to rely solely on generic and conclusory testimony from an examining psychiatrist fails in yet another helpful, and citable, 51 win.

State v. Jeffrey D. Kosmosky, 2022AP1754-CR, District 2, 3/29/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The officer who stopped the car Kosmosky was driving for speeding had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop by having Kosmosky get out of the car and do FSTs.

State v. Michael Justin Schwersinske, Jr., 2022AP162-CR, District 2, 8/10/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Schwersinske concedes the lawfulness of the initial stop of the car he was driving for crossing the centerline of Highway 151. But he argues, unsuccessfully, that the officer didn’t have reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to have Schwersinske do field sobriety tests.