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.
25-CR-89 USA v. Hannah Dugan
Decision and Order
The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the defendant failed to establish absolute judicial immunity for the acts alleged in the indictment. The court further concluded that the Tenth Amendment did not preclude the charges. Finally, the court determined that the canon of constitutional avoidance was inapplicable.
23-CV-876 Jane Doe #1 v. Mukwonago Area School District et al
Decision and Order
Plaintiff, a transgender student in the Mukwonago Area School District, filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction requiring that she be provided non-discriminatory access to restrooms reflecting her gender identity. Plaintiff asserts that the injunction is no longer necessary, as she is currently placed at a private alternative school pursuant to her IEP and therefore is not subject to MASD’s restroom policy. MASD opposed the motion, arguing that plaintiff may return to the district and/or may participate in extracurricular activities that would subject her to the restroom policy. The court granted plaintiff’s motion and dissolved the injunction.
24-CV-1519 Green v. Olympus Group Inc
Decision and Order
The court denied the defendant’s partial motion to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court explained that, because the complaint stated a claim and was supported by one valid legal theory, the court would not scrutinize plaintiff’s alternative legal theories—which were organized into separate “counts”—at the pleading stage. Under notice-pleading standards, plaintiff was not required to plead legal theories in the first place or facts corresponding to the elements of the theories, and defendant’s arguments relating to potential legal defects in the theories were better addressed at summary judgment. The court also held that a claim under the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Wis. Stat. sec. 100.18, is not a claim for fraud that needed to be pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b).
23-CV-1241 SO v. Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department et al
Decision and Order
The plaintiff alleged that she was sexually harassed and assaulted multiple times by a corrections officer while she was a detainee at the Milwaukee County Jail. She alleged claims against the corrections officer, his supervisor, and Milwaukee County under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 and state law. The County’s insurer intervened to contest coverage and filed a motion for summary judgment to establish the lack of a duty to defend or indemnify the corrections officer. The court granted the motion, finding that the alleged acts of harassment and assault were not within the scope of employment, and therefore the corrections officer was not an “insured.” In a separate motion for summary judgment, the County and the supervisor argued that they could not be liable under sec. 1983 for the corrections officer’s misconduct. The court determined that plaintiff had failed to show a genuine factual dispute as to whether her injuries were caused by a widespread practice or a failure to train, as would be required to establish the County’s liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The court also found that the supervisor was not personally involved in the alleged harassment and assaults and therefore was not liable under sec. 1983.
24-CV-1281 Champion Power Equipment Inc v. Generac Power Systems Inc
Decision and Order
The court denied a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). The court’s opinion on the motion to dismiss addressed the pleading standard applicable to claims of patent infringement. In particular, the court determined that when the patent claims relate to simple mechanical systems and nothing in the complaint indicates that all claim elements would not be found in the accused product, the plaintiff does not have to explain in the complaint exactly how the accused product might infringe. To plead a plausible claim, it is enough for the complaint to allege that all claim elements are found in the accused product, either literally or equivalently. In denying the motion for a more definite statement, the court determined that the defendant was not entitled to receive the plaintiff’s theories of claim construction and infringement before filing an answer. Those details would come in the ordinary course of discovery, and the defendant did not show that the lack of such details hindered its ability to file an answer.
