On Point

Jackson County Dept. of Health & Human Services v. A.M.N., 2024AP1166, 7/10/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA finds counsel’s performance deficient for failing to timely file affidavits opposing Jackson County’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding its petition to terminate A.M.N.’s parental rights. But A.M.N. was not prejudiced because there is no reasonable probability that the affidavits would have created a genuine issue of material fact whether she had good cause for failing to contact or communicate with her daughter,

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).

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Christopher P. Kawleski v. State, 2022AP1129, 7/3/25, District IV, (recommended for publication); case activity

COA recommends publication in a case addressing how to calculate the maximum discharge date for a defendant sentenced to a bifurcated sentence on a felony between 1999 and 2003 upon release from reconfinement after extended supervision was revoked.

Pierce County v. P.C.A., 2024AP1367, 7/1/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

While affirming the circuit court continuing a protective placement order under Chapter 55 after a due process hearing (known as a Watts hearing), the COA clarified that, following previous due process hearings, documentary evidence that was admitted, and testimony that was accepted by the circuit court and incorporated into its findings, may be considered at subsequent due process hearings. 

State v. C.J.L.,  2024AP1917, 7/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

C.J.L. contests part of the restitution ordered in his juvenile case related to a theft and break in at a dance studio–restitution for a surveillance subscription purchased after the theft, and for damages to the studio’s dance floor. Because the juvenile statute, Wis. Stat. § 938.34(5)(a), permits restitution for physical injury to a person or damage to property only, the COA agrees with C.J.L. and reverses the restitution order.

State v. Joan L. Stetzer, 2025 WI 34, 7/3/25, affirming an unpublished decision from COA; case activity

Faced with a unique fact pattern arising from an OWI prosecution, SCOW interprets Wisconsin’s coercion defense and finds that Stetzer is unable to prevail, regardless of the clearly sympathetic facts presented.

State v. Carl L. McAdory, 2025 WI 30, 7/1/25, case activity

A unanimous SCOW held that the circuit court had authority under Wis. Stat. 346.63(1)(c) to reinstate Carl McAdory’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a restricted controlled substance in his blood, which was dismissed when he was also convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance that arose out of the same incident or occurrence, after the OWI conviction was vacated on appeal.  The Court also rejected McAdory’s claims that the State forfeited the right to seek reinstatement by not raising the issue on his appeal from his OWI conviction, that the circuit court did not comply with the COA’s mandate, and that he was subjected to double jeopardy.

Village of Reeseville v. Frederick J. Prough, 2024AP1046, 7/3/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case of potential interest to those litigating ordinance violations, COA holds that an alleged technical defect in the citation form does not void the citation itself.

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.

Kelly R. Rose v. C.R.R., 2024AP1450, 7/2/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

In an interesting statutory construction appeal, COA holds that “a guardian’s determination that denying contact with a family member is in the ward’s best interest is not cause for court action against a guardian.”