Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Jamerson v. Department of Children & Families

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 10, 2013No. 2011AP593Published

1ConcurrencePatience Drake Roggensack, J.

¶ 81. {concurring). I do not join the majority opinion. Rather, I write in concurrence because subsequent to oral argument, the State conceded that there is a dispute of material fact in regard to "the narrow factual issue of the [specific] public [] benefits involved in Ms. Jamerson's Wis. Stat. § 49.12(6) and (1) conviction[s]." The State now agrees with Jamerson to seek remand to *235the Department of Children and Families pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.57(7) to conduct fact finding to determine whether Jamerson's food stamp conviction was a public benefit Jamerson received when she failed to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Wisconsin Citizens Concerned for Cranes & Doves v. Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State Ex Rel. Flores v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Nicole W.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Zrimsek v. American Automobile Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Estate of Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2011

1 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