Karow v. Milwaukee County Civil Service Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• discussing effects of construing time limit in civil service statute on public interests and individual employee interests
• citing, Merkley v. Schramm, 31 Wis. 2d 134, 138, 142 N.W.2d 173 (1966); Kamuchey v. Trzesniewski, 8 Wis. 2d 94, 100, 98 N.W.2d 403 (1959); Galewski v. Noe, 266 Wis. 7, 16, 62 N.W.2d 703 (1954); State ex rel. Johnson v. Nye, 148 Wis. 2d 659, 669, 135 N.W. 126 (1912
• “[A] time limit may be construed as directory when allowing something to be done after the time prescribed would not result in an injury.”
• “The general rule is that the word ‘shall’ is presumed mandatory when it appears in a statute.”
• “we must ascertain the consequences of holding that the time period is directory, and we must determine whether these consequences comport with the legislative purposes”
• \'Shall' is considered presumptively mandatory unless there is something in the context or the character of the legislation which requires it to be looked at differently.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).