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.

16-CV-285 Otis v. Demarasse

Order Denying Motion for Sanctions

This decision may provide helpful guidance for the conduct of depositions. The plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a Village of Waterford police officer, who the plaintiff claims violated her constitutional rights. The plaintiff filed a motion to sanction the attorney for a witness whom the plaintiff’s attorney sought to depose as part of the discovery in her case.  The plaintiff claimed, in particular, that the attorney for the witness and the attorney for the defendant disrupted the deposition through their repeated objections and severely impeded his ability to complete the deposition.  The court found that the attorneys’ conduct during the deposition was not improper and denied the motion.

File:
PDF icon 16-CV-285 Otis v. Demarasse (62).pdf
Judge:
William C. Griesbach
Date:
Monday, April 22, 2019

16-CV-1217 Oneida Nation v. Village of Hobart

Decision and Order

The Oneida Nation filed this action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the legal authority of the Village to enforce its Special Event Permit Ordinance, Chapter 250 of the Village Code, against the Nation, its officers, and its employees within the Village, which lies entirely within the 1838 boundaries of the Oneida Reservation, all of which the Nation claimed constitutes Indian Country. The action arose out of the Village’s effort to enforce the Ordinance by requiring the Nation to obtain a permit for its annual Big Apple Fest. The Village argued that the 1838 treaty that ceded land to the Oneida Tribe did not actually create a reservation. Alternatively, the Village argued that the reservation was later disestablished or at least diminished and thus the Village had jurisdiction over at least some of the areas in which the Apple Fest took place. The court partially granted the Nation’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Village’s motion for summary judgment. In so ruling, the court concluded that the Treaty of 1838 created the Oneida Reservation and that the Reservation has not been disestablished.  The court held that the Nation’s Reservation has been diminished, however, such that the Village may enforce the Ordinance on those lands not held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Nation. The court also held that the Nation’s sovereign immunity foreclosed the Village’s counterclaim for monetary damages.

 

File:
PDF icon 16-CV-1217 Oneida Nation v. Village of Hobart (130).pdf
Judge:
William C. Griesbach
Date:
Thursday, March 28, 2019

18-CV-2035, Wisconsin Freeze Dried LLC v. Redline Chambers, Inc.

Motion to remand decision

The defendant removed a suit alleging breach of contract and other claims from state court under the diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved to remand based on a contractual forum-selection clause requiring litigation in state court. The court determined that some claims were covered by the clause and some were not. The court held that a federal court has the power to partially remand a diversity case to enforce a forum-selection clause. The court remanded the claims that were covered by the clause and retained the claims that were not.

File:
PDF icon 18-CV-2035 Wisconsin Freeze Dried LLC v. Redline Chambers, Inc (23).pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Thursday, March 21, 2019

18-MC-65 Next Level Planning & Wealth Management, LLC v. Prudential Insurance Company of America et al.

Order denying petition to enforce arbitrator’s subpoena duces tecum

The court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act an arbitrator can compel a third-party to produce documents but only in conjunction with the third-party’s appearance at a hearing before the arbitrator.

File:
PDF icon 07-MC-65 Next Level v. Prudential Insurance Company of America et al.pdf
Judge:
William E. Duffin
Date:
Wednesday, February 13, 2019