On Point blog, page 3 of 5
Writs – Certiorari – Administrative Decision-Making Based Wholly on Uncorroborated Hearsay Insufficient
Michelle Williams v. Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee, 2010 WI App 14
Issue/Holding:
¶13 The circuit court reversed the Housing Authority’s denial of rent assistance because it concluded that, under Gehin v. Wisconsin Group Insurance Board, 2005 WI 16, 278 Wis. 2d 111, 692 N.W.2d 572, the Housing Authority could not base its decision solely on uncorroborated hearsay evidence (the officer’s written notes recalling the witness’s statement of what Williams said),
Michelle Williams v. Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee, 2010 WI App 14
Appellate Standard of Review, Certiorari
¶9 When we review an application for a writ of certiorari, we review the agency’s decision, not the decision of the circuit court. Kraus v. City of Waukesha Police & Fire Comm’n, 2003 WI 51, ¶10, 261 Wis. 2d 485, 662 N.W.2d 294. The scope of certiorari review is limited to whether the Housing Authority: (1) kept within its jurisdiction;
Certiorari – Administrative Decision-Making Based Wholly on Uncorroborated Hearsay Insufficient
Michelle Williams v. Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee, 2010 WI App 14
Issue/Holding:
¶13 The circuit court reversed the Housing Authority’s denial of rent assistance because it concluded that, under Gehin v. Wisconsin Group Insurance Board,2005 WI 16, 278 Wis. 2d 111, 692 N.W.2d 572, the Housing Authority could not base its decision solely on uncorroborated hearsay evidence (the officer’s written notes recalling the witness’s statement of what Williams said),
Writs – Certiorari – Inmate Complaint – “Misdirected” Writ, Lack of Jurisdiction
State ex rel. David C. Myers v. Smith, 2009 WI App 49
Pro se
Issue/Holding: Writ of certiorari “misdirected” to wrong respondent (in this instance, review of inmate complaint, improperly naming as respondent institution warden rather than DOC Secretary or designee) must be dismissed:
¶10 We begin by observing that certiorari “is available only for the purpose of reviewing a final determination.” Id.
Wtits – Certiorari – Inmate Complaint – Limitation on Discovery
State ex rel. David C. Myers v. Smith, 2009 WI App 49
Pro se
Issue/Holding: Inmate may not utilize discovery to bypass security-based restrictions on access to banned material such as pornography:
¶16 Inmates must not be allowed to evade security restrictions by simply filing suit or petitioning for writ of certiorari and obtaining prohibited materials through discovery. Due process does not mean that a prisoner has an absolute right to everything relevant to his or her case.
Certiorari – Inmate Complaint – “Misdirected” Writ, Lack of Jurisdiction
State ex rel. David C. Myers v. Smith, 2009 WI App 49
Pro se
Issue/Holding: Writ of certiorari “misdirected” to wrong respondent (in this instance, review of inmate complaint, improperly naming as respondent institution warden rather than DOC Secretary or designee) must be dismissed:
¶10 We begin by observing that certiorari “is available only for the purpose of reviewing a final determination.” Id.
Certiorari – Inmate Complaint – Limitation on Discovery
State ex rel. David C. Myers v. Smith, 2009 WI App 49
Pro se
Issue/Holding: Inmate may not utilize discovery to bypass security-based restrictions on access to banned material such as pornography:
¶16 Inmates must not be allowed to evade security restrictions by simply filing suit or petitioning for writ of certiorari and obtaining prohibited materials through discovery. Due process does not mean that a prisoner has an absolute right to everything relevant to his or her case.
Prohibition — John Doe Proceeding
State ex rel. Individual v. Davis, 2005 WI 70, on certification
For Subpoenaed Individual: Stephen P. Hurley, Marcus J. Berghahn, Hal Harlowe
Issue/Holding:
¶15 A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that normally will not issue except in the absence of other adequate remedies. [6]As a remedy, writs of prohibition are often used in connection with John Doe proceedings.
Mandamus — Review of Denial of Judicial Substitution
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Mateo D.O. v. Circuit Court, 2005 WI App 85
For Mateo D.O.: Colleen Bradley, SPD, Oshkosh Trial
Issue/Holding:
¶15. A petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is an appropriate remedy to redress the denial of judicial substitution. See State ex rel. James L.J. v. Circuit Court for Walworth County, 200 Wis. 2d 496,
Writs – Mandamus – Review of Denial of Judicial Substitution
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Mateo D.O. v. Circuit Court, 2005 WI App 85
For Mateo D.O.: Colleen Bradley, SPD, Oshkosh Trial
Issue/Holding:
¶15. A petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is an appropriate remedy to redress the denial of judicial substitution. See State ex rel. James L.J. v. Circuit Court for Walworth County, 200 Wis. 2d 496,