Reply brief in Wisconsin

2026However, that objection, and the court’s subsequent clarification that it would not rely on those hearsay statements, pertained only to the hearsay statements contained within the report—it did not extend to NP Kornfehl’s live testimony later in the hearing—and Seth therefore failed to preserve any hearsay 10 Seth’s argument that the circuit court did not make a finding that this statement was a threat is a non-starter, as we generally do not require courts to utter “magic words.” See, e.g., State v. B.W., 2024 WI 28, ¶78 , 412 Wis. 2d 364 , 8 N.W.3d 22 (stating that magic word requirements ar

2026However, that objection, and the court’s subsequent clarification that it would not rely on those hearsay statements, pertained only to the hearsay statements contained within the report—it did not extend to NP Kornfehl’s live testimony later in the hearing—and Seth therefore failed to preserve any hearsay 10 Seth’s argument that the circuit court did not make a finding that this statement was a threat is a non-starter, as we generally do not require courts to utter “magic words.” See, e.g., State v. B.W., 2024 WI 28, ¶78 , 412 Wis. 2d 364 , 8 N.W.3d 22 (stating that magic word requirements ar

2025The supreme court agreed because unlike in Nash, where the statements at issue were clearly made after plea negotiations had concluded, see Nash, 123 Wis. 2d at 159-60 , the incriminating statements at issue in Myrick were given “in 5 While the State cites State v. Myrick, 2014 WI 55, ¶42 , 354 Wis. 2d 828 , 848 N.W.2d 743 , in its Reply brief on appeal, it is, somewhat inexplicably, the first time in this matter that either party cited to Myrick, a Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion that not only interprets the precise statutory language at issue but also clearly controls the outcome of this cas

2025The same can be said for the parties’ respective failure to cite State v. Nash, 123 Wis. 2d 154 , 366 N.W.2d 146 (Ct. App. 1985), at all, which is also on point and has been controlling law on what “in connection with” means in the context of WIS.

2025The supreme court agreed because unlike in Nash, where the statements at issue were clearly made after plea negotiations had concluded, see Nash, 123 Wis. 2d at 159-60 , the incriminating statements at issue in Myrick were given “in 5 While the State cites State v. Myrick, 2014 WI 55, ¶42 , 354 Wis. 2d 828 , 848 N.W.2d 743 , in its Reply brief on appeal, it is, somewhat inexplicably, the first time in this matter that either party cited to Myrick, a Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion that not only interprets the precise statutory language at issue but also clearly controls the outcome of this cas

2025The supreme court agreed because unlike in Nash, where the statements at issue were clearly made after plea negotiations had concluded, see Nash, 123 Wis. 2d at 159-60 , the incriminating statements at issue in Myrick were given “in 5 While the State cites State v. Myrick, 2014 WI 55, ¶42 , 354 Wis. 2d 828 , 848 N.W.2d 743 , in its Reply brief on appeal, it is, somewhat inexplicably, the first time in this matter that either party cited to Myrick, a Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion that not only interprets the precise statutory language at issue but also clearly controls the outcome of this cas

2024STAT. § 48.426 is unconstitutional and instead cites to State v. Bush, 2005 WI 103, ¶17 , 283 Wis. 2d 90 , 699 N.W.2d 80 , for the proposition that “if the facial attack on the statute [is] correct, the statute would be null and void, and the court would be without the power to act under the statute.” Based on Bush, K.R.K. says that because § 48.426 is unconstitutional, “[t]he remedy is for the legislature to amend the statute, and for this court to vacate the judgment terminating [her] rights.” She says nothing in her Reply brief about remanding the matter for a new dispositional hearing appl

2024STAT. § 48.426 is unconstitutional and instead cites to State v. Bush, 2005 WI 103, ¶17 , 283 Wis. 2d 90 , 699 N.W.2d 80 , for the proposition that “if the facial attack on the statute [is] correct, the statute would be null and void, and the court would be without the power to act under the statute.” Based on Bush, K.R.K. says that because § 48.426 is unconstitutional, “[t]he remedy is for the legislature to amend the statute, and for this court to vacate the judgment terminating [her] rights.” She says nothing in her Reply brief about remanding the matter for a new dispositional hearing appl

2023Inmate Funds ¶26 MacMillan next challenges the DOC’s seizure of 50% of his inmate funds, including gifted monies, based on administrative rules passed in 2015.8 He acknowledges the holding of State v. Williams, 2018 WI App 20, ¶4 , 380 Wis. 2d 440 , 909 N.W.2d 117 , that the “circuit court, acting as the sentencing court, lacks the competency to address an allegedly improper disbursement of funds by the DOC.” His Reply brief contends he avoids this proscription because he is also seeking to amend the judgment of conviction to conform to the dictates of certain statutory language, which he appa

2023Inmate Funds ¶26 MacMillan next challenges the DOC’s seizure of 50% of his inmate funds, including gifted monies, based on administrative rules passed in 2015.8 He acknowledges the holding of State v. Williams, 2018 WI App 20, ¶4 , 380 Wis. 2d 440 , 909 N.W.2d 117 , that the “circuit court, acting as the sentencing court, lacks the competency to address an allegedly improper disbursement of funds by the DOC.” His Reply brief contends he avoids this proscription because he is also seeking to amend the judgment of conviction to conform to the dictates of certain statutory language, which he appa

2023RULE 809.23(1)(b)5. 3 In his Reply brief, Latimer attempts to distinguish from the evidence at issue here the evidence in State v. Payano, 2009 WI 86 , 320 Wis. 2d 348 , 768 N.W.2d 832 , and other panorama-evidence cases cited by the State in support of its arguments.

2023RULE 809.23(1)(b)5. 3 In his Reply brief, Latimer attempts to distinguish from the evidence at issue here the evidence in State v. Payano, 2009 WI 86 , 320 Wis. 2d 348 , 768 N.W.2d 832 , and other panorama-evidence cases cited by the State in support of its arguments.

2006It appears as though the Larsons do not understand the meaning of "standard of review." "A standard of review is 'a limiting mechanism which defines an appellate court's scope of review,' and hence its power.... [Standards of review are measures of the degree of deference that appellate courts must pay to lower tribunals, most notably trial courts." Peplinski v. Fobe's Roofing, Inc., 193 Wis. 2d 6 , 13 n.1, 531 N.W.2d 597 (1995) (citation omitted).

2006It appears as though the Larsons do not understand the meaning of "standard of review." "A standard of review is 'a limiting mechanism which defines an appellate court's scope of review,' and hence its power.... [Standards of review are measures of the degree of deference that appellate courts must pay to lower tribunals, most notably trial courts." Peplinski v. Fobe's Roofing, Inc., 193 Wis. 2d 6 , 13 n.1, 531 N.W.2d 597 (1995) (citation omitted).

1985As we understand the guardian ad litem’s arguments, he claims that the court of appeals erred in directing the circuit court to apply the factors set forth by this court in Estate of Tierney, 70 Wis. 2d 438, 444 , 234 N.W.2d *353 357 (1975), in assessing the reasonable time he spent on this matter.

1984Ordinarily, the civil or criminal purpose of the subpoena would not be raised, and the state submits could not be raised, in a subpoena directed to a person who is not the subject of the administrative investigation." Reply brief of Plaintiff-Respondent, p. 5, n. 1. [3] The witnesses gave conflicting accounts of what, if anything, White stated regarding Delbert Beno's tax difficulties and how White may have come upon this information. [4] See, e.g., United States v. Price, 655 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Kis, 658 F2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th

1984Ordinarily, the civil or criminal purpose of the subpoena would not be raised, and the state submits could not be raised, in a subpoena directed to a person who is not the subject of the administrative investigation." Reply brief of Plaintiff-Respondent, p. 5, n. 1. [3] The witnesses gave conflicting accounts of what, if anything, White stated regarding Delbert Beno's tax difficulties and how White may have come upon this information. [4] See, e.g., United States v. Price, 655 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Kis, 658 F2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th

1984Ordinarily, the civil or criminal purpose of the subpoena would not be raised, and the state submits could not be raised, in a subpoena directed to a person who is not the subject of the administrative investigation." Reply brief of Plaintiff-Respondent, p. 5, n. 1. [3] The witnesses gave conflicting accounts of what, if anything, White stated regarding Delbert Beno's tax difficulties and how White may have come upon this information. [4] See, e.g., United States v. Price, 655 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Kis, 658 F2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th

1984Ordinarily, the civil or criminal purpose of the subpoena would not be raised, and the state submits could not be raised, in a subpoena directed to a person who is not the subject of the administrative investigation." Reply brief of Plaintiff-Respondent, p. 5, n. 1. [3] The witnesses gave conflicting accounts of what, if anything, White stated regarding Delbert Beno's tax difficulties and how White may have come upon this information. [4] See, e.g., United States v. Price, 655 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Kis, 658 F2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th

1984Ordinarily, the civil or criminal purpose of the subpoena would not be raised, and the state submits could not be raised, in a subpoena directed to a person who is not the subject of the administrative investigation." Reply brief of Plaintiff-Respondent, p. 5, n. 1. [3] The witnesses gave conflicting accounts of what, if anything, White stated regarding Delbert Beno's tax difficulties and how White may have come upon this information. [4] See, e.g., United States v. Price, 655 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Kis, 658 F2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th

1984Ordinarily, the civil or criminal purpose of the subpoena would not be raised, and the state submits could not be raised, in a subpoena directed to a person who is not the subject of the administrative investigation." Reply brief of Plaintiff-Respondent, p. 5, n. 1. [3] The witnesses gave conflicting accounts of what, if anything, White stated regarding Delbert Beno's tax difficulties and how White may have come upon this information. [4] See, e.g., United States v. Price, 655 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Kis, 658 F2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th

1984Ordinarily, the civil or criminal purpose of the subpoena would not be raised, and the state submits could not be raised, in a subpoena directed to a person who is not the subject of the administrative investigation." Reply brief of Plaintiff-Respondent, p. 5, n. 1. [3] The witnesses gave conflicting accounts of what, if anything, White stated regarding Delbert Beno's tax difficulties and how White may have come upon this information. [4] See, e.g., United States v. Price, 655 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Kis, 658 F2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th

1984Ordinarily, the civil or criminal purpose of the subpoena would not be raised, and the state submits could not be raised, in a subpoena directed to a person who is not the subject of the administrative investigation." Reply brief of Plaintiff-Respondent, p. 5, n. 1. [3] The witnesses gave conflicting accounts of what, if anything, White stated regarding Delbert Beno's tax difficulties and how White may have come upon this information. [4] See, e.g., United States v. Price, 655 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Kis, 658 F2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th

1984Ordinarily, the civil or criminal purpose of the subpoena would not be raised, and the state submits could not be raised, in a subpoena directed to a person who is not the subject of the administrative investigation." Reply brief of Plaintiff-Respondent, p. 5, n. 1. [3] The witnesses gave conflicting accounts of what, if anything, White stated regarding Delbert Beno's tax difficulties and how White may have come upon this information. [4] See, e.g., United States v. Price, 655 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Kis, 658 F2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th

1984Ordinarily, the civil or criminal purpose of the subpoena would not be raised, and the state submits could not be raised, in a subpoena directed to a person who is not the subject of the administrative investigation." Reply brief of Plaintiff-Respondent, p. 5, n. 1. [3] The witnesses gave conflicting accounts of what, if anything, White stated regarding Delbert Beno's tax difficulties and how White may have come upon this information. [4] See, e.g., United States v. Price, 655 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Kis, 658 F2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th