Archives: Caselaw

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision in Dickau is the second appellate case dealing with the interrelationship between retirement and disability.

Frequent filer cases are (fortunately) rare, but they exert an undue cost on the legal system.

A recent court of appeals case, Lemke v. Lemke, raises the question of when judges can bring their own experiences into play in making decisions.

It’s rare that a discretionary order, such as maintenance, is reversed on appeal. It’s even rarer that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals goes to such length in reversing the order that it takes special concern to assure that on remand, the prevailing party on appeal can have a new judge hear the matter. Both occur in Lemke v. Lemke,

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has certified a first of its kind surrogacy case for review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

As I said in my previous post, the recent Court of Appeals case, Tierney v. Berger  appears to have corrected a silly rule in Wisconsin law:  A prohibition against “mixed” orders, which is an order which includes dollar-expressed and percentage-expressed support orders. Writing that column made me think of other silly laws in this field.  […]

While the court gets to the proper result (in my never-to-be-humble opinion) in Tierney v. Berger, it does so in a convoluted way.

In re the Paternity of F. T. R. raises a number of interesting questions, both legally and philosophically for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeals decision in Tierney is just silly. That led to me thinking … what other family law rules are simply silly?

Hopefully, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision in Nehls will be relied upon only for the waiver issue, not approving the use of a GAL serving as a type of “special master” in deciding custody matters.