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.

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.

File:
PDF icon 23-CV-1241 SO v. Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department et al.pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Thursday, February 13, 2025

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.

File:
PDF icon 24-CV-1281 Champion Power Equipment Inc v. Generac Power Systems Inc.pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Wednesday, January 22, 2025

23-CV-1327 Joshua L. Brown v. City of Racine et al

Decision and Order

This is an excessive force case involving allegations of a four-hour handcuffing that caused the plaintiff shoulder pain. The court found that the police officers may have violated the Fourth Amendment but that their actions did not violate any clearly established law and thus they were entitled to qualified immunity.

File:
PDF icon 23-CV-1327 Joshua L. Brown v. City of Racine et al.pdf
Judge:
William E. Duffin
Date:
Wednesday, January 15, 2025

22-CV-610 Uriel Pharmacy Health and Welfare Plan et al v. Advocate Aurora Health Inc et al 

24-CV-157 Shaw et al v Advocate Aurora Health Inc et al

Decision and Order

In an antitrust case involving allegations of vertical restraints in the market for health care services, the court decided seven motions to compel discovery. The court’s order addresses various issues concerning discovery in a large antitrust case, including matters relating to electronic discovery.

File:
PDF icon 22-CV-610 Uriel Pharmacy Health and Welfare Plan et al v. Advocate Aurora Health Inc et al 24-CV-157 Shaw et al v Advocate Aurora Health Inc et al.pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Friday, January 10, 2025

Pages