# State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County

> Wisconsin Supreme Court · May 25, 2004 · 271 Wis. 2d 633

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526791

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of a Privately Filed Criminal Complaint: State of Wisconsin Ex Rel. Ralph A. Kalal and Jackie Kalal, Petitioners-Petitioners, v. Circuit Court for Dane County, the Honorable John v. Finn, Presiding, Michele A. Tjader and Sarah Schmeiser, Respondents
- **Court:** Wisconsin Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 25, 2004
- **Citations:** 271 Wis. 2d 633; 681 N.W.2d 110; 2004 WI 58; 2004 Wisc. LEXIS 421
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bradley
- **Judges:** Sykes, Abrahamson, Bradley
- **Cited by:** 1,413 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526791

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that we begin statutory analysis "with the language of the statute" read "in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreason…
- explaining that “a statute is ambiguous if it is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two or more senses” and that “[i]f a statute is ambiguous, the reviewing court turns to the scope, history, context, and purpose of the statute” (citation omitted)
- holding that “[w]e assume that the legislature’s intent is expressed in the statutory language” and that “the purpose of statutory interpretation is to determine what the statute means so that it may be given its full, proper, and 8 No. 2024AP250 intended effect”
- concluding that when two statutes are " in pari materia, the court must harmonize them if possible"
- recognizing a prosecutor’s vast authority to charge or not to charge, and observing that there is no obligation on the part of a district attorney to prosecute all reports of alleged crimes that may reach the district attorney’s office

## Opinion text

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
{concurring).
¶ 74. I agree with the majority that the applicable standards for a supervisory writ have not been established. I also agree that the district attorney's actions constituted a "refusal" under Wis. Stat. § 968.02 (3). However, I write separately because of the competing discussions of statutory interpretation. Although I commend both the majority and concurrence for their endeavors, I ultimately join neither.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526791. Public record. Not legal advice.