1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.2d
  4. 52 Wis.2d
  5. 52 Wis.2d 118 (1971)
 

HAMMILL v. STATE

No. State 46.

52 Wis.2d 118 (1971)

187 N.W.2d 792

HAMMILL, Plaintiff in error, v. STATE, Defendant in error.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Decided June 25, 1971.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the plaintiff in error there was a brief by Stuart G. Urban and McIntyre, Kinney & Urban, all of Lancaster, and oral argument by Stuart G. Urban.

For the defendant in error the cause was argued by Sverre O. Tinglum, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief were Robert W. Warren, attorney general, and James B. Halferty, district attorney of Grant county.

ROBERT W. HANSEN, J.

The defendant claims that the sentences here imposed were the result of an abuse of trial court discretion in that the sentencing court was influenced by data coming from an improper source, to wit: The confidential records of the state department of health and social services, obtained without an order from the county or juvenile judge permitting their use. For three reasons, the challenge fails.

The statute. While the statute...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases