Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Remedies — harassment orders — competency

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 9, 2014//

Remedies — harassment orders — competency

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 9, 2014//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Remedies — harassment orders — competency

Where the circuit court twice adjourned a hearing on issuance of a restraining order, the court lost competency to proceed.

“WISCONSIN STAT. § 813.125(3)(c) states as relevant: The temporary restraining order is in effect until a hearing is held on issuance of an injunction under sub. (4). A judge or circuit court commissioner shall hold a hearing on issuance of an injunction within 14 days after the temporary restraining order is issued, unless the time is extended upon the written consent of the parties or extended once for 14 days upon a finding that the respondent has not been served with a copy of the temporary restraining order although the petitioner has exercised due diligence. (Emphasis added.) The statute explicitly says that a temporary restraining order can be extended ‘once for 14 days upon a finding that the respondent has not been served with a copy of the temporary restraining order.’ Id. (emphasis added). ‘“It is an elementary rule of construction that effect must be given, if possible, to every word, clause, and sentence of a statute.”’ State v. Quintana, 2008 WI 33, ¶60, 308 Wis. 2d 615, 748 N.W.2d 447 (citations omitted). As such, we cannot ignore the legislature’s directive that courts only be permitted to extend a temporary restraining order once. It is not enough that the circuit court finally held the injunction hearing within the fourteen-day extension period permitted by the statute. The statute says a court may extend the temporary restraining order ‘once.’ See § 813.125(3)(c). To permit the circuit court to extend the temporary restraining order twice would be to ignore the statute’s plain words.”

Reversed and Remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP1844 Hill v. D.C.

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, DiMotto, J., Brennan, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Habush, Laura, Brookfield; For Respondent: H, Tiffany, pro se

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