You are here

Counties Served

17-CV-386 Treiber & Straub Incorporated et al v. Stanley Convergent Security Solutions Inc.

17-CV-386 Treiber & Straub Incorporated et al v. Stanley Convergent Security Solutions Inc.

Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiffs waived the right to deny assignment of the governing contract.  The terms of the contract applied to this case, necessitating summary judgment in favor of Defendant.

18-CV-72 McGee v. Wiedmeyer et al

18-CV-72 McGee v. Wiedmeyer et al

Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.  However, because neither Defendant deprived Plaintiff of anything, and because there was a rational basis for Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff could not state a claim. 

15-CV-1157 Eaton Corp v. Westport Insurance

15-CV-1157 Eaton Corp v. Westport Insurance

Decision and Order

The court held that an insured’s claim for declaratory relief to establish coverage for asbestos claims against high-level excess liability insurers was not ripe, and therefore did not present a case or controversy under Article II of the Constitution, because the insured had not shown a practical likelihood of reaching the excess insurers’ attachment points.

21-CV-243 Gatzke, et al v. City of West Bend, et al

21-CV-243 Gatzke, et al v. City of West Bend, et al

Decision and Order

The court dismissed a claim under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 for failure to give the alleged violator proper pre-suit notice of the alleged violations. The court determined that the notice was defective because it did not provide information sufficient for the alleged violator to determine the date or dates of the alleged violations.

20-CV-349 Conforti v. City of Franklin

20-CV-349 Conforti v. City of Franklin

Decision and Order

In a case alleging that the defendant police officers used excessive force during an arrest, the court held that an officer could be liable both for using excessive force and for failing to intervene in his partner’s use of excessive force. However, the plaintiff could not recover damages twice for the same injuries.

Pages