noting that immunity when a "known present danger" is alleged may turn on whether law enforcement personnel "actually exercise discretion" or "simply [do] nothing"
Summary of this case from Hoskins v. Dodge CountyNo. 00-0480.
May 8, 2001.
[EDITORS' NOTE: THE PUBLICATION STATUS OF THIS OPINION IS GOVERNED BY WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23 (2) AND (3).]
noting that immunity when a "known present danger" is alleged may turn on whether law enforcement personnel "actually exercise discretion" or "simply [do] nothing"
Summary of this case from Hoskins v. Dodge CountyFull title:Town of Mount Pleasant, v. Hartford Accident Indemnity
Court:Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Date published: May 8, 2001
Lalor raises eleven issues in his consolidated appeals, including a claim that the judgment of commitment…
Hoskins v. Dodge CountyEven if we were to conclude that what Block communicated via his 911 call constituted a known, present…