You are here

Opinions

Below is a list of opinions specially selected for public release by judges in the district.  For a detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Note:  This database does not contain all decisions issued by all judges and is not intended to replace PACER or other more comprehensive case law sites.  The PACER system provides a report of written opinions as defined by the Judicial Conference.  Access to both the report and the opinions is free.  In order to access court records via PACER you must have a PACER account.  For PACER access and online registration, please click here.

21-CV-77 Asphalt Contractors v. R&J Transport Inc, et al

Decision and Order

The court determined that a claim for loss or damage to goods during intrastate shipment by motor carrier did not arise under federal law, and that therefore, in the absence of diversity of citizenship, the motor carrier could not remove the case to federal court. The court determined that a claim for loss or damage to goods during intrastate shipment by motor carrier did not arise under federal law, and that therefore, in the absence of diversity of citizenship, the motor carrier could not remove the case to federal court.

Judge:
Date:
Monday, April 5, 2021

20-CV-836 Weeks v. Credit One Bank, et al

Decision and Order

Complaint seeking recovery under Fair Credit Reporting Act was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Plaintiff’s assertions that defendants committed only bare procedural violations, divorced from any concrete harm, did not satisfy injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.

Date:
Monday, March 29, 2021

20-CV-1377 Hughes, et al v. Miller, et al

Decision and Order

The court dismissed a frivolous complaint filed by serial pro se litigators and enjoined them from commencing additional, similar suits in any state or federal court.

Judge:
Date:
Wednesday, February 24, 2021

17-CV-313 Archer-Daniels-Midland Co v. Country Visions Coop

Decision and Order Affirming Bankruptcy Court

Bankruptcy court’s decision denying real estate purchaser’s motion to enforce plan confirmation order against holder of right of first refusal was not legally or factually erroneous.  The holder of the ROFR had not received sufficient notice to protect its interest before the property was sold; and because the purchaser knew or should have known of the defect in title, it could not claim bona fide purchaser status.

Date:
Friday, February 19, 2021

20-CV-1305 Heidi Anderson, et al v. Elmbrook School District, et al

Decision and Order

The plaintiff sued a school district after it banned her from school property and took other actions in response to her remarks at a school board meeting, which the district deemed religiously intolerant. The plaintiff alleged that the district’s actions violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. After the district voluntarily withdrew the ban, it moved to dismiss the complaint due to mootness and other reasons. The court held that: (1) the claim involving the ban was not moot because the plaintiff could pursue a claim for damages for harm suffered while the ban was in force; (2) the district’s decision to remove the plaintiff’s remarks from its archived video of the school board meeting did not violate the First Amendment; and (3) the plaintiff could proceed on her claim that the deletion of her written comments on the District’s Facebook post violated the First Amendment. The plaintiff sued a school district after it banned her from school property and took other actions in response to her remarks at a school board meeting, which the district deemed religiously intolerant. The plaintiff alleged that the district’s actions violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. After the district voluntarily withdrew the ban, it moved to dismiss the complaint due to mootness and other reasons. The court held that: (1) the claim involving the ban was not moot because the plaintiff could pursue a claim for damages for harm suffered while the ban was in force; (2) the district’s decision to remove the plaintiff’s remarks from its archived video of the school board meeting did not violate the First Amendment; and (3) the plaintiff could proceed on her claim that the deletion of her written comments on the District’s Facebook post violated the First Amendment.

Judge:
Date:
Friday, February 12, 2021

Pages