01-1219 In re the Paternity of Danielle L.G. v. James G.

By: dmc-admin//January 7, 2002//

Listen to this article

“Barbara contends that the chief judge review is discretionary because the statute says Judge Warpinski’s determination ‘may’ be reviewed. However, the full context reads that the determination may be reviewed ‘if the party who made the substitution request files a written request for review’ within the time provided. In other words, the chief judge may only review the denial if Barbara timely requests a review. The chief judge may not review the denial if Barbara fails to request review. ‘May’ is tied to the time limitation for requesting review. It is analogous to a statute of limitation. If Barbara wanted review of the denial of her request for substitution, she had to do so within the time allowed. By not doing so, she waived review.”

Order affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Brown County, Warpinski, J., Peterson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Steven L. Miller, River Falls

For Respondent: John R. Shull Jr., Wausau

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event