Douglas County v. K.A.D., 2023AP1072, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 6/17/24; case activity (including briefs)
In an interesting grant, SCOW agrees to review this freestanding appeal of an expired medication order.
State v. B.W., 2022AP1329, review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/11/23; case activity (briefs not available)
We don’t know the precise issue or issues presented, but the court of appeals’ decision suggests the state supreme court may be looking to un-fracture the fractured decision it rendered last term in State v. A.G. There, the circuit court had told a parent pleading to grounds in his TPR trial’s first phase that the state would have the burden in the second phase: that is, the state would have to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was in the child’s best interest. Of the six justices who decided the case, four agreed there is no “burden”; rather the best-interest inquiry is the “polestar” (your guess is as good as ours on what sort of legal standard that encompasses). But these four could not agree on why the judge’s communication of this concededly incorrect standard didn’t mandate reversal; see our post for more on this. [continue reading…]
Waukesha County v. M.A.C., 2023AP533, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/11/23; case activity (including briefs)
Showing that SCOW’s interest in 51 appeals remains unabated, SCOW has accepted review of a big case that could result in the overturning of relatively recent precedent.
State v. R.A.M., 2023AP441, 6/6/23, District 1 (unpublished one-judge decision), GAL’s PFR granted, 9/26/23, case activity
As we previously explained, in a 1-judge decision, the court of appeals reversed an order terminating R.A.M.’s parental rights because the circuit court proceeded to disposition in violation of § 48.23(2)(b)3.’s rule that 2 days must elaspe between a circuit court’s default judgment finding and disposition. And since the court proceded immediately to disposition, the court (1) violated R.A.M.’s due process rights and (2) lost competency to proceed to disposition. [continue reading…]
Nancy Kindschy v. Brian Aish, 2020AP1775, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 6/22/22; case activity (including briefs), order reversing court of appeals decision, Kindschy v. Aish, 6/27/24, 2024 WI 27.
Issues (from the petition for review):
Whether Wis. Stat. §813.125, as construed by the Court of Appeals to prohibit speech from a public sidewalk intended to persuade listeners to cease their sinful conduct (participation in abortion) and repent immediately before something bad happens and they no longer have time to repent, violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, §3 of the Wisconsin Constitution?
Whether speech from a public sidewalk intended to persuade listeners, even if directed to a specific listener, to cease sinful conduct (participation in abortion) and repent immediately before something bad happens and there is no longer time to repent serves “no legitimate purpose” within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §813.125?
Whether enjoining, for a period of four years, a longtime pro-life, anti-Planned Parenthood protestor from protesting on a public sidewalk in front of a Planned Parenthood during its business hours because he made comments urging a Planned Parenthood worker to repent before something bad happens and there was no more time to repent, constitutes an unconstitutional restraint on First Amendment protected expression?
State v. Percy Antione Robinson, 2020AP1728-CR, certification granted 5/18/22; case activity (including briefs)
Question presented:
The 4th Amendment requires that a judicial officer determine probable within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991). Milwaukee County complies with this mandate by having the judicial officer review a sworn affidavit from law enforcement and set initial bail. This procedure does not require the accused to appear in person. The judicial officer simply conducts a paper review and completes a CR-215 form. Does this procedure trigger the accused’s right to counsel?
