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.

24-CV-1408 Turnipseed et al v. St. Francis Public School District et al

Decision and Order

Plaintiffs allege that the St. Francis Public School District and various employees systematically excluded minors J.T. and K.T. in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and violated their mother's First Amendment rights. As a matter of first impression, the Court found that that defendants are entitled to withhold the name of a reporter to Milwaukee Child Protective Services based on Wisconsin law and public policy, but were required provide other related records. The Court also denied a motion seeking certain personnel records, finding there was nothing more the defendants could produce. Lastly, the Court declined to bar the deposition of the minors but instituted time limits and prohibited the use of leading questions.

File:
PDF icon 24-CV-1408 Turnipseed et al v. St. Francis Public School District et al.pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Friday, February 20, 2026

25-CV-235 Hudec v. Prpa

Decision and Order

Plaintiff Patrick Hudec filed a suit seeking to collect unpaid legal fees from Defendant Nicolette Prpa, his former client. Prpa moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the suit was untimely under Wisconsin’s six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims. The court found that the statute of limitations for unpaid legal fees begins running when the attorney-client relationship ends, not when the client fails to pay an invoice. Taking the pleadings and attachments as true, it appeared that Hudec had performed legal services for Prpa within six years before the suit was filed.

File:
PDF icon 25-CV-235 Hudec v. Prpa.pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Friday, February 13, 2026

25-CV-687 Johnson v. 90 Degree Benefits Inc

Decision and Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Part

The plaintiff filed a putative class action against 90 Degree Benefits, Inc., a health care benefits administrator, following a data breach where customer data was stolen. The plaintiff brought claims under common-law negligence and various California consumer protection statutes. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. It found that the plaintiff had alleged standing for only some of his requested relief, and that some claims were adequately pled while others were not.

File:
PDF icon 25-CV-687 Johnson v. 90 Degree Benefits Inc.pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Tuesday, January 27, 2026