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.
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).
¶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[.]"
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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:
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.