City of Madison v. Ray A. Peterson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 9, 2012 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals Appeal No. NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and RULE 809.62. Cir. Ct. No. 2011CV1151 2011AP2097 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV CITY OF MADISON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. RAY A. PETERSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane County: MARYANN SUMI, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 HIGGINBOTHAM, J. Ray Peterson appeals a judgment of the circuit court affirming a municipal court judgment finding him guilty of violating Madison General Ordinances (MGO) § 27.04(2)(a). Upon our review of the briefs, we summarily affirm the circuit court s order affirming the municipal court s judgment. No. 2011AP2097 ¶2 The City of Madison issued Peterson two citations for violating MGO § 27.04(2)(a) for renting two houses and allowing the tenants to occupy the houses without first making arrangements with the city water utility to install water meters, making water available to the tenants. The City of Madison Municipal Court found Peterson guilty on both citations and assessed fines and costs totaling $1,347 for five days of being in violation of the ordinance. Peterson appealed the judgment to the Dane County Circuit Court, which conducted a record review of the municipal court s decision. The circuit court issued a decision affirming the municipal court, but on slightly different grounds. Peterson appeals. ¶3 In its appellate brief, the City of Madison argues the number of days that Peterson was in violation of the ordinance should be increased from a total of five to seven days. ¶4 The circuit court s decision appropriately disposes of the issues discussed therein. In addition, the City of Madison did not cross-appeal the circuit court s order affirming the municipal court s finding of the total days Peterson was in violation of MGO § 27.04(2)(a), and, therefore, we have no jurisdiction over that issue. Accordingly, we adopt the circuit court s August 25, 2011 decision by reference and summarily affirm. By the Court. Judgment affirmed. This opinion will not be published. 809.23(1)(b)4. (2009-10). 2 See WIS. STAT. RULE
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
