Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-1175 In the Matter of Mental Commitment of Ryan E.M. v. Ryan E.M.

By: dmc-admin//February 25, 2002//

01-1175 In the Matter of Mental Commitment of Ryan E.M. v. Ryan E.M.

By: dmc-admin//February 25, 2002//

Listen to this article

This is so because we reject the County’s argument that the method of computing time set forth in Wis. Stat. sec. 990.001(4)(a) and (d), in which the first day is excluded, applies in the context of Wis. Stat. sec. 51.20(7)(a).

“We conclude that by expressing the time requirement in terms of hours rather than days, the legislature has manifested its intent that the clock start running immediately ‘after the individual arrives at the facility,’ rather than the next day.

“We agree with the assumption made in these cases. Excluding the entire first day renders meaningless the legislature’s expression of the time limit in hours. This is because, under Dodge County’s interpretation, there is no difference between a seventy-two-hour time limit and a three-day time limit. In both cases, the time for Ryan’s probable cause hearing would expire at midnight on the third full day following his detention. But this is inconsistent with legislative intent as there are many statutes in which the legislature has chosen ‘3 days’ rather than ’72 hours’ to express a time limit. … If the legislature had intended Dodge County’s interpretation, it would have merely stated that a probable cause hearing must be held within three days after an individual arrives at the facility. …

“Accordingly, we hold that the method of computing time by excluding the first day under Wis. Stat. § 990.001(4)(a) and (d) does not apply to Wis. Stat. § 51.20(7)(a). The circuit court lost competency to proceed when the seventy-two-hour time limit expired. We therefore remand to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss Dodge County’s petition.”

Order reversed and caused remanded with directions.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dodge County, Bissonnette, J., Dykman, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Eileen A. Hirsch, Madison

For Respondent: Steven G. Bauer, Juneau

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests