Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jankowski v. Milwaukee County

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1981No. 79-1896Published

1DissentCoffey, J.

I dissent because I interpret sec. 46.10, Stats., as authorizing the collection of the costs of the plaintiffs’ care and maintenance regardless of the validity of their initial commitment. I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that sec. 46.10 is the exclusive remedy for the state or Milwaukee county to enforce their respective rights of reimbursement. I find it no more inequitable that the plaintiffs who received the benefits of the care bear the burden of the costs than the county which rendered the services as ordered by the court. My reasoning is set out more fully below.

The…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Holytz v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  2. In re CannonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Langen v. BorkowskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  4. County of Dane v. Department of Health & Social ServicesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  5. State Ex Rel. Memmel v. MundyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API