enumerated factors in Wisconsin

2026This argument, however, ignores that the statute does not require that the court explicitly state its findings on the record as to each and every one of the enumerated factors; it simply requires that the court consider each of them. ¶21 “When a circuit court awards attorneys fees, the amount of the award is left to the discretion of the court.” Kolupar, 275 Wis. 2d 1, ¶22 .

2023Sorenson specifically stated that the enumerated factors were designed to assist courts in “making an assessment of the admissibility of a child’s statements under the residual [hearsay] exception.” Id. at 245 .

2023But the court did not find the interview recording admissible under that exception; indeed, it stated it was honoring Judge Lazar’s partial determination to the contrary. 3 Ferguson perhaps intends to rely on the notion, articulated in Wold v. State, 57 Wis. 2d 344, 354 , 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973), that it is unfair to the accused to use a coerced confession for impeachment purposes when such a confession would be otherwise inadmissible.

2023But the court did not find the interview recording admissible under that exception; indeed, it stated it was honoring Judge Lazar’s partial determination to the contrary. 3 Ferguson perhaps intends to rely on the notion, articulated in Wold v. State, 57 Wis. 2d 344, 354 , 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973), that it is unfair to the accused to use a coerced confession for impeachment purposes when such a confession would be otherwise inadmissible.

2019LeMere v. LeMere, 2003 WI 67, ¶25 , 262 Wis. 2d 426 , 663 N.W.2d 789 . ¶14 Here, the circuit court considered the applicable statutory factors— many of which overlap with the factors impacting maintenance—and it awarded each party the personal property that was in their possession at that time.

2019LeMere v. LeMere, 2003 WI 67, ¶25 , 262 Wis. 2d 426 , 663 N.W.2d 789 . ¶14 Here, the circuit court considered the applicable statutory factors— many of which overlap with the factors impacting maintenance—and it awarded each party the personal property that was in their possession at that time.

2012See § 51.30(4); see also Watton v. Hegerty, 2008 WI 74 , ¶ 19 n.13, 311 Wis. 2d 52 , 751 N.W.2d 369 (" 'shall' has a mandatory-meaning within § 51.30(4)(a)"); Billy Jo W. v. Metro, 182 Wis. 2d 616, 639 , 514 N.W.2d 707 (1994) (explaining that courts may "release ch. 51 court records when the requested access fits within one of the statutory exceptions in sec. 51.30(4)(b) or when the requested access is comparable to" an exception). 8 ¶ 28.

2012See § 51.30(4); see also Watton v. Hegerty, 2008 WI 74 , ¶ 19 n.13, 311 Wis. 2d 52 , 751 N.W.2d 369 (" 'shall' has a mandatory-meaning within § 51.30(4)(a)"); Billy Jo W. v. Metro, 182 Wis. 2d 616, 639 , 514 N.W.2d 707 (1994) (explaining that courts may "release ch. 51 court records when the requested access fits within one of the statutory exceptions in sec. 51.30(4)(b) or when the requested access is comparable to" an exception). 8 ¶ 28.

2005Seibert in turn relies on State v. Keding, 214 Wis. 2d 363, 367 , 571 N.W.2d 450 (Ct. App. 1997), an initial chapter 980 placement case, for the proposition that a determination of the appropriate placement under Wis. Stat. § 980.06 (2) is discretionary because it involves consideration of interrelated statutory factors. ¶ 24.

2005Seibert in turn relies on State v. Keding, 214 Wis. 2d 363, 367 , 571 N.W.2d 450 (Ct. App. 1997), an initial chapter 980 placement case, for the proposition that a determination of the appropriate placement under Wis. Stat. § 980.06 (2) is discretionary because it involves consideration of interrelated statutory factors. ¶ 24.

2004Also, in State v. Kuntz, 160 Wis. 2d 722, 753 , 467 N.W.2d 531 (1991), the court, after discussing some of the aforementioned factors, stated, "[n]one of the other prejudicial factors to be considered apply to this case." Thus, the listed factors are merely elements to be considered when applying the "particularized application" of the § 904.03 balancing test under § 906.09(2).

2004Also, in State v. Kuntz, 160 Wis. 2d 722, 753 , 467 N.W.2d 531 (1991), the court, after discussing some of the aforementioned factors, stated, "[n]one of the other prejudicial factors to be considered apply to this case." Thus, the listed factors are merely elements to be considered when applying the "particularized application" of the § 904.03 balancing test under § 906.09(2).

2002Hodel, 883 F.2d 890 (10th Cir. 1989); Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity, 910 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990). 14 We agree with Dairyland that it makes no difference whether the interest of the public in having an issue resolved is considered in conjunction with one or more of the enumerated factors, or whether it is deemed a factor (the "public rights exception") to be considered in addition to the nonexclusive factors set out in Wis. Stat. § 803.03 (3).

1990The enumerated factors are designed to further the general objectives of maintenance, which are "to support the recipient spouse in accordance with the needs and earning capacities of the parties (the support objective) and to ensure a fair and equitable financial arrangement between the parties in each individual case (the fairness objective)." LaRocque, 139 Wis. 2d at 33 , 406 N.W.2d at 740 .

1990The enumerated factors are designed to further the general objectives of maintenance, which are "to support the recipient spouse in accordance with the needs and earning capacities of the parties (the support objective) and to ensure a fair and equitable financial arrangement between the parties in each individual case (the fairness objective)." LaRocque, 139 Wis. 2d at 33 , 406 N.W.2d at 740 .

1985In re Interest of F.R.W. (a minor), 61 Wis. 2d 193, 204 , 212 N.W.2d 130, 135 (1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 974 (1974).

1985In re Interest of F.R.W. (a minor), 61 Wis. 2d 193, 204 , 212 N.W.2d 130, 135 (1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 974 (1974).

1964The court enumerated factors that point to the status of an independent contractor: “. . . the place of work, the time of employment, the method of payment, the right of summary discharge of employees, the nature of the business or *522 occupation, which party furnishes the instrumentalities or tools, and the intent of the parties to the contract.” (p. 374.) 5 Sec. 326.12, Stats.; ch. 113, Laws of 1961. 6 Sec. 326.12 (1), Stats. 1959. 7 28 USCA, p. 286, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 26. 8 28 USCA, p. 271, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 43 (b). 9 Shine v. Hagemeister Realty Co. (1919

1964The court enumerated factors that point to the status of an independent contractor: “. . . the place of work, the time of employment, the method of payment, the right of summary discharge of employees, the nature of the business or *522 occupation, which party furnishes the instrumentalities or tools, and the intent of the parties to the contract.” (p. 374.) 5 Sec. 326.12, Stats.; ch. 113, Laws of 1961. 6 Sec. 326.12 (1), Stats. 1959. 7 28 USCA, p. 286, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 26. 8 28 USCA, p. 271, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 43 (b). 9 Shine v. Hagemeister Realty Co. (1919

1964The court enumerated factors that point to the status of an independent contractor: “. . . the place of work, the time of employment, the method of payment, the right of summary discharge of employees, the nature of the business or *522 occupation, which party furnishes the instrumentalities or tools, and the intent of the parties to the contract.” (p. 374.) 5 Sec. 326.12, Stats.; ch. 113, Laws of 1961. 6 Sec. 326.12 (1), Stats. 1959. 7 28 USCA, p. 286, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 26. 8 28 USCA, p. 271, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 43 (b). 9 Shine v. Hagemeister Realty Co. (1919

1964The court enumerated factors that point to the status of an independent contractor: “. . . the place of work, the time of employment, the method of payment, the right of summary discharge of employees, the nature of the business or *522 occupation, which party furnishes the instrumentalities or tools, and the intent of the parties to the contract.” (p. 374.) 5 Sec. 326.12, Stats.; ch. 113, Laws of 1961. 6 Sec. 326.12 (1), Stats. 1959. 7 28 USCA, p. 286, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 26. 8 28 USCA, p. 271, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 43 (b). 9 Shine v. Hagemeister Realty Co. (1919

1964The court enumerated factors that point to the status of an independent contractor: “. . . the place of work, the time of employment, the method of payment, the right of summary discharge of employees, the nature of the business or *522 occupation, which party furnishes the instrumentalities or tools, and the intent of the parties to the contract.” (p. 374.) 5 Sec. 326.12, Stats.; ch. 113, Laws of 1961. 6 Sec. 326.12 (1), Stats. 1959. 7 28 USCA, p. 286, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 26. 8 28 USCA, p. 271, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 43 (b). 9 Shine v. Hagemeister Realty Co. (1919

1964The court enumerated factors that point to the status of an independent contractor: “. . . the place of work, the time of employment, the method of payment, the right of summary discharge of employees, the nature of the business or *522 occupation, which party furnishes the instrumentalities or tools, and the intent of the parties to the contract.” (p. 374.) 5 Sec. 326.12, Stats.; ch. 113, Laws of 1961. 6 Sec. 326.12 (1), Stats. 1959. 7 28 USCA, p. 286, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 26. 8 28 USCA, p. 271, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 43 (b). 9 Shine v. Hagemeister Realty Co. (1919

1964The court enumerated factors that point to the status of an independent contractor: “. . . the place of work, the time of employment, the method of payment, the right of summary discharge of employees, the nature of the business or *522 occupation, which party furnishes the instrumentalities or tools, and the intent of the parties to the contract.” (p. 374.) 5 Sec. 326.12, Stats.; ch. 113, Laws of 1961. 6 Sec. 326.12 (1), Stats. 1959. 7 28 USCA, p. 286, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 26. 8 28 USCA, p. 271, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 43 (b). 9 Shine v. Hagemeister Realty Co. (1919

1964The court enumerated factors that point to the status of an independent contractor: “. . . the place of work, the time of employment, the method of payment, the right of summary discharge of employees, the nature of the business or *522 occupation, which party furnishes the instrumentalities or tools, and the intent of the parties to the contract.” (p. 374.) 5 Sec. 326.12, Stats.; ch. 113, Laws of 1961. 6 Sec. 326.12 (1), Stats. 1959. 7 28 USCA, p. 286, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 26. 8 28 USCA, p. 271, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 43 (b). 9 Shine v. Hagemeister Realty Co. (1919