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.

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

23-CV-1169 Tempel v. School District of Waukesha et al

Decision and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff Melissa Tempel, a former first grade teacher at Heyer Elementary School in Waukesha, Wisconsin, sued the School District of Waukesha and Superintendent of Schools Dr. James Sebert for allegedly terminating her employment in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case arises out of a “tweet” Tempel made from her personal Twitter account regarding the school’s decision to replace the song “Rainbowland” by Miley Cyrus and Dolly Parton with “Rainbow Connection” for the first graders’ annual spring concert. Tempel was ultimately terminated from her employment at Heyer.

Both parties moved for summary judgment in their favor on the plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim. The court concluded that while Tempel established that she was speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, weighing the factors relevant to Pickering balancing, the District’s interest in workplace efficiency outweighed Tempel’s First Amendment interest in expression. As such, the court concluded that because Tempel had not shown she engaged in constitutionally protected speech, her retaliation claim failed.

File:
PDF icon 23-CV-1169 Tempel v. School District of Waukesha et al.pdf
Judge:
Nancy Joseph
Date:
Monday, September 29, 2025

23-CV-642 Kovacic et al. v. Oconto County et al.

Decision and Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and Denying Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiffs Kevin and Tammy Kovacic brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for damages against fifteen law enforcement officers and the two counties and city that employed them, Oconto and Forest Counties and the City of Crandon, for allegedly violating Plaintiffs’ rights.  The case arises out of the stop of a vehicle in which Plaintiffs were lawfully transporting legal hemp to a customer in northeast Wisconsin in the course of Ms. Kovacic’s business, Wautoma Cannabis Queen, LLC.  When a drug detection dog alerted on the car and the hemp tested positive for the presence of THC, law enforcement officers seized the hemp, arrested Mr. Kovacic, and booked him into the Oconto County Jail.  By the time the hemp was tested and found to be lawful, it had lost all value.  Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims, and the County Defendants filed a motion for sanctions.  On summary judgment, the court found issues of fact as to whether two officers had violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights but found all of the individual officers immune under the doctrine of qualified immunity.  The court also found factual disputes as to whether Oconto County was liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).  The court denied the County Defendants’ motion for sanctions under Rule 11.

File:
PDF icon 23-CV-642 Kovacic et al. v. Oconto County et al. (123).pdf
Judge:
William C. Griesbach
Date:
Tuesday, September 23, 2025

24-CV-1281 Champion Power Equipment Inc. v. Generac Power Systems Inc.

Omnibus Decision and Order

The court granted the defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in the protective order governing discovery. The court determined that attorneys who review confidential documents in litigation discovery and then later prosecute patents on behalf of that company’s competitors creates a risk of “inadvertent disclosure.” The court determined that the prosecution bar should only apply to “competitive decisionmaking” attorneys who choose to view certain highly-sensitive material, and found that two of plaintiff’s lawyers were “competitive decisionmakers” as that term is defined.

File:
PDF icon 24-CV-1281 Champion Power Equipment Inc. v. Generac Power Systems Inc..pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Wednesday, September 17, 2025

24-CR-164 USA v. Peter Braun

Decision and Order

The court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. The court determined that the “private search” doctrine did not authorize law enforcement to conduct a warrantless examination of the contents of a digital file forwarded by an electronic service provider (“ESP”) where the ESP had not visually inspected the contents of that file. The court further determined that the “good faith” doctrine, recognized in Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011), did not apply under these circumstances.

File:
PDF icon 24-CR-164 USA v. Peter Braun.pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Wednesday, September 3, 2025

Pages