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-575 St Augustine School et al v. Evers et al

Decision and Order

On remand from the Seventh Circuit, the district court entered a declaratory judgment stating that the state superintendent of public instruction and a local school district violated a Wisconsin statute that requires the school district to provide transportation aid to students of religious private schools. The court also determined that the state-law violation did not also violate the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, and that therefore the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief or damages under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.

Judge:
Date:
Monday, September 19, 2022

21-CV-247 Radke v. City of Wauwatosa et al

Decision and Order

The court granted summary judgment on claims brought by a protestor who participated in demonstrations relating to the shooting death of Alvin Cole by Joseph Mensah. The court determined: (1) the plaintiff had not established that the City of Wauwatosa violated the First Amendment rights of the protestor by declaring an emergency curfew that had the effect of prohibiting protesting on city streets after dark; (2) the plaintiff could not succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim because she had no evidence that the curfew or the police response to the protestor’s violation of the curfew was motivated by the content of the protestor’s speech; and (3) the protestor failed to establish that the use of tear gas and less lethal projectiles on protestors who refused orders to disperse and began throwing objects at police officers violated the Fourth Amendment.

Judge:
Date:
Wednesday, August 24, 2022

07-CV-303 Burton v. American Cyanamid Co et al

Decision and Order

Additional cases include 07-CV-303, 07-CV-441, 10-CV-75, 07-CV-864, 11-CV-55, 11-CV-425, and 14-CV-1423.  The court denied a motion for reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision in which it dismissed claims brought by individuals injured by white lead carbonate under the doctrines of law of the case and issue preclusion.

Judge:
Date:
Tuesday, August 16, 2022

19-CV-781 English et al v. City of Milwaukee et al

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions for Summary Judgment

Plaintiffs Jarrett English and Benetria McGowan allege City of Milwaukee police officers unlawfully arrested them and used excessive force against them during the protests and gatherings that occurred in Sherman Park following the shooting of Sylville Smith in 2016.  They further allege the City has Monell liability for carrying out a policy of unlawful police dispersals.  The Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in part, determining that one of the officer defendants was not personally involved in the alleged use of excessive force and that that the claims against two of the Monell defendants were redundant.  In all other respects, the Court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, concluding that material factual disputes remain, including whether the conditions in Sherman Park during the night of the arrests justified police dispersal orders, whether McGowan or English materially obstructed the officers’ ability to carry out those orders, and whether officers received instructions to arrest individuals regardless of probable cause.

Date:
Friday, August 12, 2022

20-CV-1342 Currie v. State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Decision and Order

Plaintiff brought this action against defendant State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company alleging defendant breached an insurance contract when it failed to pay a claim related to fire damage at plaintiff’s property. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the policy only covered the dwelling where plaintiff resided and that plaintiff did not reside at the fire-damaged property. The court granted the motion, finding that under Wisconsin law plaintiff did not reside at the property.

Judge:
Date:
Wednesday, July 27, 2022

Pages