City of Milwaukee v. Washington

735 N.W.2d 111 (2007)

From our private database of 47,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

City of Milwaukee v. Washington

Wisconsin Supreme Court
735 N.W.2d 111 (2007)

Facts

Ruby Washington (defendant) was diagnosed with tuberculosis at a tuberculosis clinic. She received medication upon diagnosis but then failed to return for follow-up treatment. Because Washington was homeless, she could not be located. The City of Milwaukee Health Department (department) (plaintiff) obtained a court order for isolation and treatment under observation. The department served that order on Washington two months later when she was admitted to the Aurora Sinai Medical Center (medical center) to deliver a baby. The next day, Washington belligerently threatened to leave the medical center, prompting the department to seek judicial enforcement of the isolation-and-treatment order. The parties agreed that Washington would remain at the medical center pending a hearing. At the hearing, the department noted that Washington’s recovery had progressed. The parties agreed that Washington would live with her sister and report to the tuberculosis clinic regularly to receive observed treatment. However, shortly after release from the medical center, Washington left her sister’s house and did not return. She was arrested, and the department filed a motion of contempt asking that Washington be confined to the Milwaukee County Criminal Justice Facility (CJF) for treatment due to her failure to comply with the earlier court orders. Although Washington’s tuberculosis was not presently infectious, the department explained that she would soon become infectious absent treatment. The department argued the CJF was the best facility because it was already staffed with security. Confining Washington to the medical center, as she requested, would require an expenditure of taxpayer funds on police guards to prevent Washington from disappearing again. The trial court ordered Washington’s confinement to the CJF, and the court of appeals affirmed. Washington appealed, arguing that the relevant Wisconsin statute required that she be confined in a medical facility.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Butler, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 905,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,100 briefs - keyed to 995 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership