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.

23-CV-1511 Village of Hobart v. United States Department of the Interior et al.

Decision and Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

The Village of Hobart filed this action challenging the Department of the Interior’s decision to take land into trust for the Oneida Nation pursuant to Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA), 25 U.S.C. § 5108.  The Village asserted that the agency’s determination violates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the United States Constitution.  The Village filed a motion for summary judgment.  Finding that the Federal Defendants’ actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion and that Section 5 of the IRA is constitutional, the court affirmed the Department of the Interior’s decision and denied the Village’s motion for summary judgment.

File:
PDF icon 23-CV-1511 Village of Hobart v. United States Department of the Interior et al. (77).pdf
Judge:
William C. Griesbach
Date:
Tuesday, December 2, 2025

24-CV-1369 Legend Lake Property Owners Association Inc. et al. v. Menominee County et al.

Decision and Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

The plaintiffs brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendants Menominee County, the Town of Menominee, and the Menominee Indian School District, seeking relief from the increasing taxes assessed against the property of the Legend Lake Property Owners Association’s members.  The plaintiffs alleged the defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying the Association’s members’ rights to equal protection of the law and substantive due process as well as the Fifth Amendment by unlawful exercise of eminent domain.  The plaintiffs also alleged violations of the Wisconsin Constitution.  The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss.  The court found the plaintiffs lacked standing as to most of the relief sought, and given the readily available state law remedies, the court was satisfied that the well-established principles of comity precluded its exercise of jurisdiction over the federal claims as to which standing might exist.

File:
PDF icon 24-CV-1369 Legend Lake Property Owners Association Inc. et al. v. Menominee County et al. (38).pdf
Judge:
William C. Griesbach
Date:
Wednesday, November 26, 2025

21-CV-204 Schutte v. ProHealth Care Inc

Decision and Order Certifying Rule 23 Class Action

Plaintiff Donna Schutte sued ProHealth Care Inc., a health care provider, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. She alleges that ProHealth charged patients a “paper copies” fee to process medical record requests when the records were provided electronically, and that these charges violate Wis. Stat. § 146.83(3f)(b). Over ProHealth’s objection, the court found that the requirements of Rule 23 class certification were met. In particular, it concluded that the common questions shared by the class members predominate over individual questions. It also concluded that many of ProHealth’s arguments went to the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims and were therefore raised prematurely.

File:
PDF icon 21-CV-204 Schutte v. ProHealth Care Inc.pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Thursday, November 20, 2025

25-CV-1562 De La Cruz v. Schmidt

Decision and Order

Petitioner Fernando Lopez de la Cruz, a Mexican national, was arrested and detained pending immigration removal proceedings. Petitioner filed this petition, alleging that the government was illegally detaining him in violation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act ("INA"). He argued that the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") had incorrectly classified him as a noncitizen subject to the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), a provision that mandates detention pending proceedings, rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which permits noncitizens to be released on bond. More specifically, petitioner argued that § 1225(b)(2) is applicable to noncitizens who are apprehended at or near the time or location of entry, while § 1226 is applicable to noncitizens who are apprehended having lived for some time in the U.S. The Court agreed with petitioner, holding that the plain text of the statute, the legislative history, and the historical interpretation of the statute all indicate that § 1226 is applicable to petitioner.

File:
PDF icon 25-CV-1562 De La Cruz v. Schmidt (18).pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Wednesday, November 19, 2025

08-CV-724 United States of America et al v. Wisconsin Bell Inc

Decision and Order

Relator Todd Heath brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act alleging that defendant Wisconsin Bell, Inc., fraudulently obtained subsidies by falsely certifying that it was providing telecommunications services to schools and libraries at the lowest rate charged to similarly situated customers for similar services. Wisconsin Bell filed a motion for summary judgment on three grounds. First, Wisconsin Bell argued it could not be liable for any damages because fund from which the subsidies were paid was primarily financed through carrier contributions, not the United States government. Therefore, it argued, the United States could not be injured. Second, Wisconsin Bell argued that Heath's expert inappropriately compared two technologies and two customers that were not similar as a matter of law and, therefore, all related claims should be barred. Finally, Wisconsin Bell argued that the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act are unconstitutional.

The Court found that, if Wisconsin Bell is found to have violated the False Claims Act, damages will be available for the entire amount of money in the Fund because any injury to the Fund is an injury to the government. In addition, the Court found that the correct measure of damages is the entire amount of any fraudulently obtained claim. As to the similarity of the technologies and customers, the Court found that genuine issues of material fact precluded granting summary judgment and, furthermore, there was not enough evidence to determine that the comparison is inappropriate as a matter of law. Finally, the Court agreed with numerous other Circuit and District Courts in finding that the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act do not violate the Constitution.

File:
PDF icon 08-CV-724 United States of America et al v. Wisconsin Bell Inc.pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Wednesday, October 29, 2025

Pages