1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.2d
  4. 194 Wis.2d
  5. 194 Wis.2d 654 (1995)
 

BURRUS v. GOODRICH

No. 94-1329.

194 Wis.2d 654 (1995)

535 N.W.2d 85

(Trial Court #90 CV 3184) Major BURRUS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Patricia GOODRICH, Stephen Bablitch, Russell Leik, Gary R. McCaughtry, and Mike Traut, Defendants-Appellants. (Trial Court #90 CV 3185) STATE EX REL. John M. JOHNSTON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael TRAUT and Russell Leik, Defendants-Appellants. (Trial Court #89 CV 3961) Alan W. RIVEST, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Patricia GOODRICH and State of Wisconsin, Defendants-Appellants. (Trial Court #89 CV 430) Pauline SMART, Carol Alexander, Rhonda Ambuehl, Robert L. Beavers, Lawrencia Bembenek, Kathleen Braun, Grover L. Crain, Albert M. Garcia, Richard L. Grennier, Woodrow Guiden, Johnnie B. Herron, Garry Horneck, George H. Johnson, Mark C. Ketterhagen, Lowell Stan Latender, Mark J. Leroux, Frank MacDougall, Jody Mayo, Barbara Miller, Claude D. Miller, Robert J. Morgan, Dale A. Pautz, Harlan Richards, Francisco J. Ruiz, Bob Scarrah, Harvey J. Schultz, Allerd J. Sharlow, Sr., Danny Shears, Bonnie Smith, Al Spanle, Richard Steele, Thomas R. Tucker, Richard L. Wagner, Johnny Wooten, Alan W. Rivest, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Patricia GOODRICH, Stephen Bablitch, Defendants-Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Decided May 11, 1995.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the defendants-appellants the cause was orally argued by Peter C. Anderson and submitted on the briefs of James E. Doyle, attorney general, and Peter C. Anderson, assistant attorney general.

For the represented plaintiffs-respondents the cause was orally argued by and submitted on the brief of Jeff Scott Olson of Madison.

Before Eich, C.J., Sundby and Vergeront, JJ.

EICH, C.J.

The plaintiffs in this action, all inmates serving life sentences in the Wisconsin state prison system, sought a declaratory judgment voiding various rules adopted by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections governing inmate security classifications within the system. They claimed that the rules violated the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions.

The trial court concluded that the rules, which establish minimum periods...

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