11-CV-560 USA et al v. Skirosky Aircraft Corp et al
Decision and Order
The court decided eleven motions in limine.
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.
Judge:
Date:
Thursday, April 18, 2024
23-CV-458 Story v. Marquette University
Decision and Order
The mother of Drew Story brought a wrongful death action against Marquette University alleging that the negligence of the Marquette University Police Department lead to her son’s death. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Drew’s volitional decision to commit suicide breaks the chain of causality connecting the alleged conduct with the death. The court granted defendant’s motion, finding that under Wisconsin law, suicide constitutes an intervening force which breaks the line of causation from the alleged wrongful act to the death, precluding liability. The court further found that the special-relationship exception to the general rule does not apply to plaintiff’s claims, as Drew was no longer in MUPD custody at the time he took his own life and had been released from such custody almost six months prior.
Judge:
Date:
Friday, March 29, 2024
21-CV-848 Estate of Alvin Cole v. Mensah et al
Decision and Order
The family members and estates of three individuals fatally shot by former Wauwatosa police officer Joseph Mensah bring these consolidated actions alleging that Mensah, former Wauwatosa police chief Barry Weber, and the City of Wauwatosa violated their constitutional rights. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the claims alleged by the Estate of Alvin Cole. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court determined that due to conflicting testimony regarding whether Cole had pointed a gun at Mensah, there were genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. Further, the court granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ equal protection claims, plaintiffs’ supervisory liability claim against Weber, and plaintiffs’ Monell claim against the City of Wauwatosa.
Judge:
Date:
Friday, March 29, 2024
23-CV-1543 Kayla Peterson v. Racine Unified School District
Decision and Order
The court granted a school district’s motion to dismiss a claim for wrongful discharge under Wisconsin law. The district terminated the plaintiff, who ran an after-school program in an elementary school, for refusing to comply with or enforce the district’s masking requirement for preventing the spread of COVID-19. In her wrongful-discharge claim, plaintiff alleged that terminating her for this reason violated a fundamental and well-established public policy. The court determined that enforcing a mask mandate in a school was not contrary to public policy. Plaintiff also alleged that requiring children to wear masks is a form of child abuse, and that therefore her termination was contrary to the public policy against child abuse reflected in the state’s criminal child-abuse laws. The court determined that no legal authority supported plaintiff’s allegation that mask wearing is a form of child abuse, and that plaintiff’s personal belief that mask wearing may harm children could not establish that the termination violated the public policy against child abuse.
Judge:
Date:
Friday, March 22, 2024
23-CV-159 Hulce v. Zipongo Inc
Decision and Order
In a case alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s do-not-call regulation, the court determined that a call to the plaintiff urging him to utilize a free service available under his health insurance did not “encourage the purchase” of any good or service and therefore was not a “telephone solicitation” within the meaning of the Act.
Judge:
Date:
Monday, March 18, 2024