Marian Ross v. Milwaukee City Housing Authority
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED April 7, 2015 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. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals Appeal No. NOTICE Cir. Ct. No. 2013CV8850 2014AP1217 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT I MARIAN ROSS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. MILWAUKEE CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: CHRISTOPHER R. FOLEY, Judge. Affirmed. Before Curley, P.J., Kessler, J. and Thomas Cane, Reserve Judge. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Appellant Marian Ross appeals the circuit court’s order affirming a decision of the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee.1 We review the agency’s decision, not circuit court’s decision. See Williams v. Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee, 2010 WI App 14, ¶9, 323 Wis. 2d 179, 779 N.W.2d 185. 1 No. 2014AP1217 The Housing Authority terminated Ross from the Section Eight Housing Choice Voucher Program because her nephew, a lifetime registered sex offender, was living with her in violation of program rules. Ross contends that: (1) the Housing Authority’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because she testified that her nephew did not live with her and the evidence to the contrary was hearsay; (2) the Housing Authority’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable and represented its will, not its judgment; (3) the Housing Authority improperly switched the burden of proof to her; and (4) the Housing Authority terminated her from the program for an improper reason. We affirm. ¶2 After considering the arguments of the parties on appeal, the transcript of the agency hearing and the record before the agency, we conclude that the circuit court’s written decision properly analyzes and disposes of the issues Ross raises on appeal. Therefore, we affirm for the reasons explained in the circuit court’s decision. See WIS. CT. APP. IOP VI (5)(a) (Nov. 30, 2009) (“When the trial court’s decision was based upon a written opinion … that adequately express[es] the panel’s view of the law, the panel may … make reference thereto, and affirm on the basis of that opinion.”). By the Court.—Order affirmed. This opinion will not be published. 809.23(1)(b)5. (2013-14). 2 See WIS. STAT. RULE 3
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.
