Thomas John Curran

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.

free speechcivil rightsabortion

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.

civil rightstorts & liability

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

electionscivil rights

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

propertycivil rightsprocedure

Shandwick Holdings, Ltd., a Bahamian corporation, sued Carver Boat Corporation and its parent Genmar Holdings, Inc., in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for defects in a yacht purchased in 1997, asserting claims including breach of contract and warranties, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, and breach of the duty of good faith, and seeking damages or rescission. After discovery, both sides moved for partial summary judgment. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the negligence, intentional misrepresentation, and punitive damages claims on the basis of Wisconsin's economic loss doctrine, which bars recovery of purely economic losses in tort when a contract governs the transaction and the claims concern product quality. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a declaration invalidating the limited warranty without prejudice, finding the record incomplete due to the plaintiff's shareholders' failure to appear for depositions.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Ronald Zeman suing his former employer Miller Brewing Company for breach of a collective bargaining agreement and his union, Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 35, for breaching its duty of fair representation under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act by failing to timely request arbitration of his grievance, which led to dismissal of the grievance as untimely. After the court previously found the union liable, the parties stipulated to arbitration on the merits, which upheld the discharge, and Miller was dismissed from the case. Zeman then sought damages from the union including attorney fees and compensation for pain and suffering. The court granted summary judgment awarding Zeman $19,035 in attorney fees as compensatory damages but denied the pain and suffering claim, reasoning that attorney fees are available as proximate damages in Section 301 cases under Seventh Circuit precedent and rulings from other circuits, while the American Rule otherwise bars such fee awards absent statutory or contractual authorization.

labor & employment

The case involved a contract dispute between Satellite Receivers, Ltd. (SRL), a seller of satellite dishes, and Household Bank, which provided private-label credit card financing for SRL's products. Under a 1992 agreement and a 1997 settlement, the parties disputed Household's right to charge back amounts to SRL for customer accounts where buyers stopped payments due to issues with Alpha Star programming services tied to the dishes. The court granted summary judgment to Household on the Alpha Star chargebacks, holding that Section 7 of the agreement plainly permitted chargebacks for customer disputes over the quality or performance of goods and services, with SRL bearing the risk of loss. It denied summary judgment on three other accounts (Ruhf, Peterson, and Garrison), finding factual issues regarding timely resolution and good faith. The decision rested on the plain language of the contract and the absence of evidence that SRL had fulfilled notification requirements for resolved disputes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved five former members and the executive director of a tribal housing authority suing the Sokaogon Chippewa Tribe, its council, and officials over a factional dispute, alleging that the defendants illegally assumed control, dissolved the authority, mismanaged federal housing funds, violated regulations, and committed acts like mail fraud and conversion, seeking damages and injunctive relief under RICO and state law. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, holding that tribal sovereign immunity barred the claims against the tribe, council, and officials in their official capacities, as no waiver was established. It further dismissed claims against the individual defendants for failure to exhaust tribal court remedies, finding that federal jurisdiction did not exist due to these doctrines despite the involvement of federal funds and agencies.

federal powercriminal lawprocedure

Dennis Van Straten, a Wisconsin prisoner, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the revocation of his parole, which occurred after he was convicted of a new crime in Florida while on parole and then extradited back to Wisconsin. The district court denied the petition on the merits and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court reasoned that the state courts' rejection of Van Straten's due process and other claims was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as his right to a prompt revocation hearing had not ripened until his return to Wisconsin custody and the ten-week delay there was not unreasonable under precedents such as Moody v. Daggett.

criminal lawprocedure

Michelle Hudson, an African American woman, sued Kenosha County and her union Local 990 after her temporary employment as an economic support specialist was ended and she was not converted to a permanent position, alleging violations of her rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1988, and Title VI due to race discrimination and lack of due process. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. It found no evidence that the county or union's actions—returning Hudson to temporary status and ending her employment after 180 days pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement and a consent award—were racially motivated, as the rules applied were facially neutral. The court further held that Hudson lacked a protected property interest in permanent employment and failed to show any county policy or custom supporting her claims or that the union acted under color of state law.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a proposed class action by a Wisconsin resident who took diet drugs against the manufacturers, asserting claims for negligent, strict responsibility, and intentional misrepresentation and seeking a declaratory judgment that medical monitoring costs could be recovered without barring future suits for physical injuries. The defendants removed the action to federal court on diversity jurisdiction grounds. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand based on the amount in controversy but then remanded the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that federal courts cannot issue declarations determining the preclusive effect of their judgments on future actions because that determination is reserved for the subsequent court.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Inc. suing the City of Greenfield and the Village of Greendale over local enforcement of Wisconsin zoning statutes that imposed 2,500-foot spacing requirements and population-based capacity limits on community living arrangements for individuals with disabilities. The plaintiff claimed these rules violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Equal Protection Clause, seeking damages and injunctive relief against the restrictions. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and analyzed whether the state statutes were preempted by federal law or unconstitutional, applying the Salerno standard for facial challenges rather than the Casey undue-burden test. It examined the interplay between the state zoning scheme in Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(i) and federal anti-discrimination protections, noting that the statutes treated certain supervised housing differently based on disability-related characteristics.

civil rightspropertyfederal power

The case involves Rhein Building Company and HGM Architecture suing Herman Gehrt, Hy Quality Builders, Shirley Bender-Gehrt, Robert Acord, and insurers for copyright infringement of architectural plans for an eight-family apartment building under federal law, with plaintiffs seeking damages and injunctive relief. The defendants denied liability and moved for summary judgment, while the insurers sought declarations that their liability policies provided no duty to defend or indemnify against the copyright claims. The court outlined federal jurisdiction over the copyright action and supplemental jurisdiction over state insurance issues, applied Wisconsin law to the coverage questions due to the policies' origin, and noted the scarcity of precedent on insurance coverage for architectural copyright infringement given the relatively recent statutory protections. The analysis centered on policy construction as a question of law and the standards for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Christopher Unger, a federal prisoner convicted in 1991 of conspiracy to possess and distribute over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his conviction and 120-month sentence. He claimed his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a withdrawal defense, incorrectly advising on co-conspirator conduct, and inadequate sentencing preparation, and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising these issues. The government argued procedural default because the claims were not presented on direct appeal. The court denied the motion, holding that Unger had procedurally defaulted his constitutional claims by not raising them earlier and failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice, and that he suffered no actual prejudice under Strickland from the alleged errors because the sentencing issues had already been resolved against him on appeal and the potential sentence difference was not significant.

criminal lawprocedure

Richard Beiser filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction and sentence for two counts of delivering cocaine after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The state appellate court had affirmed the conviction, rejecting claims concerning the factual basis for the plea, ineffective assistance of counsel on an entrapment defense, prosecutorial misconduct at sentencing, and an excessive sentence. The federal district court denied the petition, finding that the state court's adjudication did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, that an additional claim about prompt probable cause determination was procedurally defaulted, and that the guilty plea barred independent constitutional claims arising before the plea under Tollett v. Henderson.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Darrin Bowles, who was convicted in Wisconsin state court of first-degree reckless homicide after a 1993 jury trial for the shooting death of his friend Michael Townsel during a struggle over a gun while both were intoxicated. Bowles argued that the trial court violated due process by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of second-degree reckless homicide and that his trial counsel's closing argument improperly relieved the prosecution of its burden to prove an element of the crime. The district court denied the petition, holding that in noncapital cases, the omission of a lesser-included-offense instruction is not grounds for federal habeas relief unless it results in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, and the state courts reasonably determined that the evidence did not support such an instruction. The court also found no basis for relief on the ineffective-assistance claim arising from counsel's argument.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Warren, defendant Tanglyan Marie Leonard was charged with conspiring to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana. She moved to suppress evidence seized from her luggage during a warrantless search at Milwaukee's General Mitchell International Airport, arguing violations of her Fourth Amendment rights. After an initial hearing where a magistrate recommended denying the motion based on reasonable suspicion and consent, additional hearings revealed misconduct by the lead officer, leading the magistrate to recommend granting suppression due to lack of credible evidence for consent and inapplicability of inevitable discovery. The district court adopted this recommendation, finding the officer's account unreliable, the luggage detention unjustified, and any consent invalid because it followed an improper seizure that caused the bags to miss their connecting flight.

criminal lawprocedure

Johnny Davidson sued his former employer, Wisconsin Natural Gas Company, under 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) for breach of the collective bargaining agreement, seeking reinstatement, back pay, and damages after being discharged following positive random and periodic drug tests for cocaine. The company had placed him on a last-chance agreement after an initial positive test and rehabilitation, which limited appeals to internal grievance steps and waived arbitration; it later discharged him after a second positive test and denied his grievance following an internal hearing. After discovery closed, the defendant moved for summary judgment with uncontested proposed facts showing compliance with its Fitness for Duty Program and the agreement's terms, including timely notification and testing procedures. The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the case, concluding there were no genuine issues of material fact and the company was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure