Title: Winnebago County v. D.E.W.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2024 WI 21 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2023AP215 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the matter of the mental commitment of 
D.E.W.: 
 
Winnebago County, 
          Petitioner-Respondent, 
     v. 
D. E. W., 
          Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS  
 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 14, 2024   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
March 20, 2024   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Winnebago  
 
JUDGE: 
Scott C. Woldt   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the respondent-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs 
filed by Christopher P. August, assistant state public defender. 
There was an oral argument by Christopher P. August, assistant 
state public defender.  
 
For the petitioner-respondent there was a brief filed by 
Catherine B. Scherer, assistant corporation counsel. There was 
an oral argument by Catherine B. Scherer, assistant corporation 
counsel. 
 
 
 
2 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Andrew T. Phillips, 
Matthew J. Thome, and Attolles Law, S.C., Milwaukee, on behalf 
of Wisconsin Counties Association. 
 
 
2024 WI 21
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2023AP215 
(L.C. No. 2022ME335) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the matter of the mental commitment of 
D.E.W.: 
 
 
 
Winnebago County, 
 
          Petitioner-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
D. E. W., 
 
          Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner. 
FILED 
 
MAY 14, 2024 
 
Samuel A. Christensen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed as 
improvidently granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   D.E.W. petitioned for review of a 
decision of the court of appeals, Winnebago County v. D.E.W., 
No. 2023AP215, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. July 26, 
2023), which affirmed an order of the circuit court granting 
Winnebago County's petition to involuntarily medicate him.  
After reviewing the record and the briefs, and after hearing 
oral arguments, we conclude that this matter should be dismissed 
as improvidently granted. 
No. 
2023AP215   
 
2 
 
By the Court.—The review of the decision of the court of 
appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted. 
 
 
No.  2023AP215.rgb 
 
1 
 
¶2 
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J.   (concurring).  Justice 
Rebecca Dallet reprises similar arguments earlier advanced by 
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley regarding this court's treatment of 
cases dismissed as improvidently granted.1  Offering nothing more 
than a generalized invocation of a "strong public policy 
rationale," Justice Dallet fails to justify a departure from 
this court's custom of dismissing cases as improvidently granted 
without commentary.  Justice Dallet's concurrence, ¶10. 
¶3 
In response to Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's most recent 
advocacy for explanatory per curiam opinions in cases dismissed 
as improvidently granted, I observed, "[a] shallow explanation 
of the court's reason for dismissing a case as improvidently 
granted amounts to nothing more than a hollow victory for one 
party and provides nothing for future litigants."  Amazon 
Logistics, Inc. v. LIRC, 2024 WI 15, ¶12, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 
18 N.W.3d ___ (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring).  In my 
concurrence in Amazon, I noted that our practice of withholding 
an explanation for dismissals mirrors the United States Supreme 
Court's custom, id., ¶11, and reiterated multiple reasons 
militating against more expansive opinions in dismissed cases.  
Id., ¶14.  To suggest, as Justice Dallet does, that a per curiam 
                                                 
1 Amazon Logistics, Inc. v. LIRC, 2024 WI 15, ¶3, ___ Wis. 
2d ___, ___ 18 N.W.3d ___ (Ann Walsh Bradley, J., concurring); 
State v. Jackson, 2023 WI 37, ¶15, 407 Wis. 2d 73, 989 N.W.2d 
555 (Ann Walsh Bradley, J., dissenting); Slamka v. Gen. Heating 
& Air Conditioning Inc., 2022 WI 68, ¶4, 404 Wis. 2d 586, 980 
N.W.2d 957 (Ann Walsh Bradley, J., concurring); Cobb v. King, 
2022 WI 59, ¶3, 403 Wis. 2d 198, 976 N.W.2d 410 (Ann Walsh 
Bradley, J., concurring); Fond du Lac County v. S.N.W., 2021 WI 
41, ¶3, 396 Wis. 2d 773, 958 N.W.2d 530 (Ann Walsh Bradley, J., 
dissenting).  
No.  2023AP215.rgb 
 
2 
 
should explain why the court dismisses a case as improvidently 
granted sounds beneficial in theory but in practice would only 
confuse attorneys, judges, and litigants.   
¶4 
In certain situations, a majority may not agree on the 
legal rationale for dismissing a particular case without a 
decision.  Attempting to craft a potentially fractured rationale 
would not benefit the parties.  Additionally, a more detailed 
explanation of this court's decision to dismiss a case as 
improvidently granted could inadvertently develop legal holdings 
cited by future litigants as a basis for dismissing cases as 
improvidently granted.  When we grant a petition for review, we 
expect the parties to make legal arguments on the issues 
presented; expanding our explanations for dismissing a case 
could distract from the substantive issues in favor of tactical 
arguments.   
¶5 
I join the per curiam opinion of the court but concur 
to once again2 rebut the misconception that more detailed 
explanations supporting dismissal of a case as improvidently 
granted would provide greater clarity for parties or their 
attorneys.  
¶6 
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice ANNETTE 
KINGSLAND 
ZIEGLER 
and 
Justice 
BRIAN 
HAGEDORN 
join 
this 
concurrence.  
 
 
                                                 
2 Amazon, 2024 WI 15, ¶14 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., 
concurring); State v. Jackson, 407 Wis. 2d 73, ¶9 (Rebecca 
Grassl Bradley, J., concurring).  
No.  2023AP215.rfd 
 
1 
 
¶7 
REBECCA FRANK DALLET, J.   (dissenting).  I would not 
dismiss 
this 
case 
as 
improvidently 
granted. 
 
Like 
all 
sufficiency-of-the-evidence cases, the issues raised here are 
necessarily fact-specific.  Nonetheless, there are questions 
about whether the County met its burden to prove by clear and 
convincing evidence that D.E.W. received an adequate explanation 
of 
the 
advantages 
and 
disadvantages 
of 
the 
particular 
medications the County sought to administer involuntarily.  See 
Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(g)4.  I agree with D.E.W. that a decision 
resolving 
those 
questions 
may 
help 
clear 
up 
potential 
uncertainty in circuit courts and the court of appeals about the 
interplay between Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, 
349 Wis. 2d 148, 833 N.W.2d 607, and Winnebago County v. 
Christopher S., 2016 WI 1, 366 Wis. 2d 1, 878 N.W.2d 109.  See 
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1r).  Accordingly, I respectfully 
dissent.   
¶8 
I also write separately to make two additional points.  
First, although the parties did not address the issue in their 
briefs, in a future case we may need to resolve the issue of 
whether 
physicians' 
reports 
prepared 
in 
recommitment 
or 
involuntary medication cases like this one need to be admitted 
into evidence to be considered by the circuit court.   
¶9 
In this recommitment and involuntary medication case, 
the examining physician prepared a report that was never 
admitted into evidence listing the particular medications the 
County sought to administer and summarizing the advantages, 
disadvantages, 
and 
potential 
side-effects 
of 
those 
No.  2023AP215.rfd 
 
2 
 
medications.  If this were instead an initial commitment 
proceeding, then under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(9)(a), that report 
would have been created by court-appointed physicians and filed 
with the circuit court.  Because such reports are court-ordered 
and filed, the court of appeals has concluded that the circuit 
court may rely on them even if they are not admitted into 
evidence.  See Outagamie County v. L.X.D.-O., 2023 WI App 17, 
¶34, 407 Wis. 2d 441, 991 N.W.2d 518.  But it is not clear that 
the same is true of physicians' reports in recommitment or 
involuntary medication cases like this one, which are subject to 
different requirements.  See id., ¶¶35-36 (stating that Waukesha 
County v. S.L.L., 2019 WI 66, ¶24, 387 Wis. 2d 333, 929 
N.W.2d 140 and Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶7 n.4, 
391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277 require that "in a recommitment 
hearing . . . an examiner's report must be received into 
evidence to be considered by the circuit court").      
¶10 Second, as Justice Ann Walsh Bradley has written in 
the past, I believe that this court should explain our reasons 
for dismissing a case as improvidently granted.  See, e.g., 
Amazon Logistics, Inc. v. LIRC, 2024 WI 15, ¶3, 411 Wis. 2d 166, 
4 N.W.3d 294 (Ann Walsh Bradley, J., concurring).  As she has 
correctly explained, the court's recent practice of issuing 
terse per curiam decisions dismissing cases as improvidently 
granted fails to provide guidance to litigants and the public.  
Id., ¶5.  Moreover, failing to provide such an explanation may 
"effective[ly] negat[e] . . . the numerous hours of work and 
sums of money spent seeking a decision on the merits."  Id.  For 
No.  2023AP215.rfd 
 
3 
 
these reasons, there is a strong public policy rationale for 
following our older practice of providing an explanation for 
such dismissals.  See id., ¶4 & n.1.   
¶11 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this opinion.          
 
 
No.  2023AP215.rfd 
 
1