St. ex Rel. Sielen v. Milwaukee Cir. Ct.

26 Citing cases

  1. State v. Matthews (In re Commitment of Matthews)

    2021 WI 42 (Wis. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    See Wis. Stat. § 808.03. State ex rel. Sielen v. Cir. Ct. for Milwaukee Cnty., 176 Wis. 2d 101, 499 N.W.2d 657 (1993). DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C. v. Galaxy Gaming & Racing Ltd. P'ship, 2003 WI App 190, 267 Wis. 2d 233, 670 N.W.2d 74, rev'd in part on other grounds, 2004 WI 92, 273 Wis. 2d 577, 682 N.W.2d 839.

  2. State v. Anderson

    2006 WI 77 (Wis. 2006)   Cited 72 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "error is harmless if the beneficiary of the error proves 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained'"

    The interpretation and application of a constitutional provision and a statute are questions of law that we determine independently of the circuit court or court of appeals but benefiting from their analyses.State v. Andrews, 201 Wis. 2d 383, 389, 549 N.W.2d 210 (1996); State ex rel. Sielen v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, 176 Wis. 2d 101, 106, 499 N.W.2d 657 (1993).

  3. State v. Matthews (In re Matthews)

    2020 WI App. 33 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    ¶18 In State ex rel. Sielen v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County , our supreme court stated that "[a]llowing a request for substitution after a hearing on a motion to compel discovery would allow a party to inappropriately ‘test the waters’ before a particular judge and then seek substitution." Seeid. , 176 Wis. 2d 101, 114, 499 N.W.2d 657 (1993). In holding that the motion to compel in that probate action was a "preliminary contested matter," the supreme court observed that the trial court's powers in resolving the motion to compel included potentially barring a party from presenting any evidence which "obviously implicates the merits of the case[.]"

  4. DeWitt Ross Stevens v. Galaxy Gaming

    2003 WI App. 190 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming in part and reversing in part a decision of the circuit court for Dane County, Maryann Sumi, Judge

    Whether or not a party is entitled to a substitution of judge under Wis. Stat. § 801.58(1) and (3) presents an issue of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. State ex rel. Sielen v. Circuit Court, 176 Wis.2d 101, 106, 499 N.W.2d 657 (1993).

  5. State v. Beaver Dam Area Dev. Corp.

    2008 WI 90 (Wis. 2008)   Cited 17 times
    Explaining when prospective application is warranted

    While this canon is not infallible, it may be used "as a means of discovering legislative intent." State ex rel. Sielen v. Cir. Ct. for Milwaukee County, 176 Wis. 2d 101, 112, 499 N.W.2d 657 (1993). Implicit in the majority opinion is the principle that an entity's status as a non-profit corporation, even when the corporation is not created by government, does not exempt the corporation from public records law.

  6. Jones v. State

    226 Wis. 2d 565 (Wis. 1999)   Cited 48 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that specific statutes control general ones only when there is truly a conflict and courts are to harmonize statutes to avoid conflicts when a reasonable construction of the statutes permits that

    To conclude otherwise would lead to absurd results which we are duty bound to avoid. State ex rel. Sielen v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, 176 Wis.2d 101, 108, 499 N.W.2d 657 (1993). Effectively we would be concluding that while district attorneys have discretion in determining whether or not to prosecute and in selecting which of several related crimes he or she wishes to charge, he or she would have no discretion in deciding whether to initiate forfeiture actions. Cf. State v. Annala, 168 Wis.2d 453, 473, 484 N.W.2d 138 (1992); Braunsdorf, 98 Wis.2d at 577.

  7. Gerczak v. Estate of Gerczak

    2005 WI App. 168 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 9 times

    The application of one statute to another is similarly a question of law. See State ex rel. Sielen v. Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 176 Wis. 2d 101, 106, 499 N.W.2d 657 (1993). We attempt to harmonize statutes, if possible, by reading them together in a way that will give each full force and effect.

  8. State v. Brown

    2004 WI App. 33 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times   5 Legal Analyses

    Stat. § 980.08(3), the court "shall appoint" a professional to "furnish a written report" providing guidance for the court's consideration of the ultimate issue, it would be absurd to conclude that admissibility was not "provided . . . by statute." Wis. Stat. § 908.02; seeState ex rel. Sielen v.Circuit Court forMilwaukee County, 176 Wis.2d 101, 109, 499 N.W.2d 657, 660 (1993) (court should interpret a statute to avoid an absurd result). The report and its author, of course, still may be subjected to adversarial testing (and here, as Brown concedes, he could have called Dr. Kotkin as a witness).

  9. DiBenedetto v. Jaskolski

    2003 WI App. 70 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Treating the presumption created by §§ 69.21(c) and 891.09 as a rebuttable presumption

    Reading the subsections of the statute together, seeState exrel. Sielen v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, 176 Wis.2d 101, 110, 499 N.W.2d 657 (1993) ("court should use each part of a statute in conjunction with the others to create a harmonious whole"), we draw no such distinction and see no substantial way in which it would affect the issues in this appeal. ¶ 15. Wisconsin Stat. § 903.01, in relevant part, provides:

  10. Jungbauer v. Polk County

    632 N.W.2d 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001)

    The interpretation of a statute is a question of law which we review de novo. State ex rel. Sielen v.Circuit Court, 176 Wis.2d 101, 106, 499 N.W.2d 657 (1993). ¶ 10.