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.
18-CV-561 Wisconsin Electrical Employees Health and Welfare Plan et al v. Lewins Electric LLC
Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
17-CV-1208 Rikkers v. Menard, Inc.
Order Granting Summary Judgment
Plaintiff argued that Menard’s mail-in rebate involved added expenses that deprived him of the full value of the claimed “11%” rebate. Because the term “rebate” contemplates Menard’s practices, the Court granted summary judgment for Menard’s.
20-CV-1090 French et al v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company et al
Decision and Order
Complaint seeking to revise state-approved insurance rates was dismissed via judgment on the pleadings. The Filed Rate Doctrine barred all of Plaintiffs’ claims.
21-CV-959 Sebring v. Milwaukee Public Schools, et al
Decision and Order
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
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
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.