Fond du Lac County v. S.N.W., 958 N.W.2d 530

Fond du Lac County obtained circuit-court orders for involuntary commitment and involuntary medication/treatment of S.N.W.; the court of appeals affirmed.
A psychiatric report required by Wis. Stat. § 51.20(10)(b) to be provided 48 hours before the final hearing was filed late; counsel for S.N.W. challenged that late filing.
The Supreme Court granted review to address several novel questions about the 48-hour rule, admission of the tardy report and testimony, sufficiency of evidence of dangerousness, and mootness.
After briefing and oral argument, the Court issued a two-sentence per curiam opinion: review dismissed as improvidently granted.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissented, arguing the Court should explain its dismissal and should decide the merits (including applying mootness doctrine and exceptions), because the issues are important and recurring.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Did the circuit court lack competency to proceed because the psychiatry report was not provided 48 hours in advance?	County: Court retained competency; late filing did not require vacatur.	S.N.W.: 48-hour rule violation deprived the court of competency and required exclusion/remedy.	Supreme Court: Review dismissed as improvidently granted (no merits decision).
2. If court was competent, was it error to admit the tardy report and the author's testimony?	County: Admission was proper or harmless.	S.N.W.: Admission was erroneous and prejudicial under § 51.20(10)(b).	Supreme Court: Review dismissed as improvidently granted (no merits decision).
3. Was the evidence sufficient to prove dangerousness to justify commitment/medication?	County: Evidence supported findings of dangerousness.	S.N.W.: Evidence insufficient.	Supreme Court: Review dismissed as improvidently granted (no merits decision).
4. Is the appeal moot because S.N.W. has died?	County: Mootness or discretionary dismissal appropriate; relief not required.	S.N.W.: Appeal not moot; appeal rights survive death in ch. 51 cases and exceptions apply.	Supreme Court: Review dismissed as improvidently granted (no merits decision). Justice Ann Walsh Bradley would have addressed mootness and applied controlling precedents to allow review.

State v. Kloss, 2020 WI 26, 390 Wis. 2d 685, 939 N.W.2d 564 (example of recent per curiam dismissals with boilerplate language)
Waukesha Cnty. v. J.J.H., 2020 WI 22, 390 Wis. 2d 531, 939 N.W.2d 49 (similar per curiam dismissal practice)
Michael J. Waldvogel Trucking, LLC v. LIRC, 2012 WI 28, 339 Wis. 2d 248, 810 N.W.2d 811 (dismissal explained where change in law made decision unhelpful)
Smith v. Anderson, 2017 WI 43, 374 Wis. 2d 715, 893 N.W.2d 790 (dismissal explained due to unresolved coverage questions and risk of confusion)
Langlade Cnty. v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277 (appeal rights in ch. 51 proceedings survive a respondent's death)
Portage Cnty. v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 54, 386 Wis. 2d 672, 927 N.W.2d 509 (mootness exceptions: public importance and capable-of-repetition-evasion)
State v. McDonald, 144 Wis. 2d 531, 424 N.W.2d 411 (1988) (criminal-context rule that appeal survives defendant's death)