The case involved Pastor Matthew Trewhella and James Long suing the City of Lake Geneva and its mayor, alleging that two city ordinances regulating parades and public assemblies violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by restricting their ability to picket in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic to protest abortions. The plaintiffs sought injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the ordinances were challenged and one replaced the other, the court determined on summary judgment that both ordinances were unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs, awarding each nominal damages of one dollar, and declared specific sections of the later ordinance unconstitutional. The court's reasoning centered on the application of the ordinances to the plaintiffs' protected speech activities, finding violations despite the repeal of the first ordinance not fully mooting the claims for damages.
The case involved a lawsuit by Cynthia Easley, as administrator of the estate of her son Christopher Easley, against multiple police officers, municipalities, and related defendants after Christopher was shot and killed by Officer David Kirmsee on October 26, 2000. Christopher, who was intoxicated and armed with a knife after self-inflicted injuries, had charged the officer despite commands to drop the weapon, following a 911 call from his mother. The plaintiff alleged violations of Christopher's Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights, the Equal Protection Clause, and state-law claims including battery, wrongful death, and failure to hire/train/supervise. The defendants moved for summary judgment with supporting proposed findings of fact; the plaintiff did not respond, leading the court to deem the facts undisputed and grant summary judgment to all defendants. The federal claims were dismissed with prejudice on the merits for lack of any constitutional violation or other basis for liability, while the supplemental state claims were dismissed without prejudice.
Randy Lechner, a state prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions on multiple counts including second-degree reckless homicide, homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle, causing great bodily harm by intoxicated use of a vehicle, and two counts of second-degree recklessly endangering safety, all arising from a single incident. The district court reviewed the petition under AEDPA standards requiring deference to state court rulings on the merits unless they are contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent or based on unreasonable factual findings. The court examined the charges under Wisconsin statutes and double jeopardy principles, noting that the offenses involve distinct elements and that earlier tests like the "same conduct" rule from Grady v. Corbin had been overruled by United States v. Dixon. The petition was denied because the state court's adjudication of the included-crime and double-jeopardy claims satisfied federal requirements.
In Frank v. Forest County, the Forest County Potawatomi Community and tribal member Harold Frank sued Forest County, its Board of Supervisors, and county clerk, alleging that the county's 2001 redistricting plan for its 21 supervisory districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to create additional majority-Native American districts. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the April 2002 elections under the plan. After a bench trial combining summary judgment motions with findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court held that the plan complied with one-person, one-vote requirements and did not dilute Native American voting strength, as the county had properly used total population data from the 2000 Census, considered public input including tribal requests, and produced districts with minimal population deviations. The court therefore dismissed the action on the merits and entered judgment for the defendants.
Henry Martin, convicted by a jury of bank robbery and sentenced to 62 months in prison plus fines and restitution, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence on grounds that his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court reviewed the claims, including allegations related to the handling of evidence, witness testimony, prosecutorial comments, and trial strategy, after the conviction had been affirmed on direct appeal. The court determined that Martin failed to show deficient performance by counsel or resulting prejudice under the Strickland standard, found no procedural defaults excusable by actual innocence, and concluded that none of the asserted errors warranted relief. Accordingly, the court denied both the original and amended § 2255 motions and dismissed the action on the merits.
Alfred Zealy sued the City of Waukesha under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the city violated his due process rights by rezoning roughly 8.2 acres of his 10.38-acre parcel as a wetland conservancy district without providing compensation allegedly promised in a 1982 easement agreement that allowed sewer construction and anticipated residential development. After the Wisconsin Supreme Court had earlier ruled in an inverse condemnation action that no taking occurred and the claim was not ripe, Zealy brought this federal suit. Both parties moved for summary judgment, asserting no material facts were disputed. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) standards to determine whether either side was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, considering issues of claim preclusion, the distinction between takings and due process remedies, and whether the rezoning was arbitrary.