State v. Schulpius

39 Citing cases

  1. State v. Milwaukee County

    2006 WI App. 229 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    Sec. § 980.12(1); State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶ 42 n. 11, 287 Wis. 2d 44, 707 N.W.2d 495, cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2042 (2006); State v. Sprosty, 227 Wis. 2d 316, 336, 595 N.W.2d 692 (1999). The responsibility for "care of persons . . . committed" under WIS. STAT. ch. 980 includes providing housing.

  2. State ex rel. Greer v. Wiedenhoeft

    2014 WI 19 (Wis. 2014)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In State ex rel. Greer v. Wiedenhoeft, 2014 WI 19, 353 Wis.2d 307, 845 N.W.2d 373, where DOC issued a certificate of discharge from probation before the term of probation had expired, we held that such certificate did not have the effect of discharging the probationer.

    ¶ 57 Substantive due process provides protection from “certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions.” State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶ 33, 287 Wis.2d 44, 707 N.W.2d 495. “The test to determine if the state conduct complained of violates substantive due process is if the conduct ‘shocks the conscience ... or interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Joseph E.G., 2001 WI App 29, ¶ 13, 240 Wis.2d 481, 623 N.W.2d 137).

  3. Walworth Cnty. v. M.R.M. (In re M.R.M.)

    2023 WI 59 (Wis. 2023)   Cited 6 times

    We have nevertheless continued to apply the Chevron/Kurtz factors. See, e.g., State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶27 n.6, 287 Wis.2d 44, 707 N.W.2d 495 (declining to overrule Kurtz). Neither party asks us to reconsider Kurtz.

  4. State v. Peshek (In re Peshek)

    No. 2022AP94 (Wis. Ct. App. May. 10, 2023)

    The letter referred to the fact that another person eligible for supervised release had been waiting for more than one year for a residential option in light of the restricted areas in which such persons may reside, see Wis. Stat. § 980.08(4)(dm)1.a.-c., and the "exceedingly tight real estate market in southeastern Wisconsin." In response, Peshek, relying on State v. Sprosty, 227 Wis.2d 316, 595 N.W.2d 692 (1999), and State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, 287 Wis.2d 44, 707 N.W.2d 495, moved for an order "compelling Kenosha County to buy, build, or lease a residence." The County opposed the motion.

  5. Onewest Bank FSB v. Groysman

    823 N.W.2d 839 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012)

    Also, it is unknown if Groysman ever brought the one-day discrepancy to the attention of the trial court. We do not consider the merits of issues raised for the first time on appeal. See State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶ 26, 287 Wis.2d 44, 707 N.W.2d 495. We also note that if an objection had been raised in the trial court, OneWest could have filed an amended complaint. SeeWis. Stat. § 802.09(1); see alsoWis. Stat. § 803.01.

  6. State v. Boose

    2012 WI App. 132 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012)

    We do not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal. See State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶ 26, 287 Wis.2d 44, 707 N.W.2d 495 (appellate court generally does not review an issue raised for the first time on appeal). Further, to the extent this court does not address a particular subissue, it is rejected because we have determined that it lacks merit.

  7. State v. Brown

    Appeal No. 2016AP369-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2017)

    ¶19 We decline to address the merits of Brown's claim because he did not previously challenge the constitutionality of the statute. See State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶26, 287 Wis. 2d 44, 707 N.W.2d 495 (appellate courts generally will not address issues raised for the first time on appeal). Brown disagrees.

  8. Waupaca Cnty. v. K.E.K.

    2021 WI 9 (Wis. 2021)   Cited 21 times
    Rejecting a petitioner's claim that a statute was unconstitutional as applied to them because "[t]he statute ha[d] no application, constitutional or otherwise, against those" in the petitioner's position

    "Substantive due process provides protection from ‘certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions.’ " State ex rel. Greer v. Wiedenhoeft, 2014 WI 19, ¶57, 353 Wis. 2d 307, 845 N.W.2d 373 (quoting State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶33, 287 Wis. 2d 44, 707 N.W.2d 495 ). The right to equal protection of the laws arises from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

  9. Black v. City of Milwaukee

    2016 WI 47 (Wis. 2016)   Cited 15 times
    In Black, the court addressed whether the City's actions in defying Section 66.0502 deprived the plaintiffs (referenced therein as the "Police Association") of substantive due process rights.

    Penterman, 211 Wis.2d 458, ¶ 39, 565 N.W.2d 521 (some quotation marks omitted) (quoting Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 125, 110 S.Ct. 975 ). “The test to determine if state conduct complained of violates substantive due process is if the conduct ‘shocks the conscience ... or interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered society.’ ” State ex rel. Greer, 353 Wis.2d 307, ¶ 57, 845 N.W.2d 373 (quoting State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶ 33, 287 Wis.2d 44, 707 N.W.2d 495 ). The Police Association argues both that the City's actions shock the conscience and that its actions interfere with a liberty interest.

  10. State v. Gilbert (In re Gilbert)

    2012 WI 72 (Wis. 2012)   Cited 10 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the term “predicate offense” to refer to the sexually violent offense recited in a Chapter 980 petition

    In State v. Schulpius, we reiterated our holding in Marberry that even “where there was a violation of procedural due process ... release is not only inappropriate, it is not justifiable under the dual purposes of the statute.” 2006 WI 1, ¶ 39, 287 Wis.2d 44, 707 N.W.2d 495,cert. denied547 U.S. 1138, 126 S.Ct. 2042, 164 L.Ed.2d 797 (2006) (quoting Marberry, 262 Wis.2d 720, ¶ 30, 665 N.W.2d 155). ¶ 26 In light of these cases, it is clear that the protection of the public from sexually violent persons is of central importance in Wis. Stat. ch. 980 cases.