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.
23-CV-986 Bhandari et al. v. Outagamie County et al.
Decision and Order Denying-In-Part and Granting-In-Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Xee Yang suffered fatal injuries when she fell or jumped from a moving minivan onto the highway as she was being transported to the Winnebago Mental Health Institute by two Outagamie County Sheriff Deputies. Her husband and her estate brought this action against the two deputies who were transporting her and Outagamie County, asserting six claims: (1) a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against the deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) a similar claim against the County under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); (3) a claim against the County under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A); (4) a claim against Outagamie County under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.; (5) a state law wrongful death claim against the deputies under Wis. Stat. § 345.05(2); and (6) a state law claim against the County for indemnification of the deputies for their personal liability under Wis. Stat. § 845.46. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The court denied the motion as to the Fourteenth Amendment claim against the deputies as well as the state law claims, but granted the motion as to the other federal claims.
24-CR-240 USA v. Bradshaw
Order Granting Motion to Suppress
The defendant is charged in an indictment with possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The charge arises out of a traffic stop of the vehicle the defendant was driving in the early morning hours of November 24, 2024, in the City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin. A loaded Ruger 9 mm semi-automatic pistol was found under the driver’s seat during the search of the vehicle conducted by a City of Oshkosh police officer during the course of the stop. The defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of that search on the ground that it was obtained in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. While the defendant does not challenge the initial stop of the vehicle he was driving, he contends that the search was conducted without probable cause and that the firearm, as well as other evidence obtained in the search, should be suppressed. Notwithstanding the officer’s testimony that he detected the unmistakable odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle when he first approached it, the court granted the motion to suppress, finding that the government failed to meet its burden of proving the warrantless search was supported by probable cause.
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).
