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.
17-CV-1701 Daniels v. Klemors et al
Decision and Order
Section 1983 claim. Three of the four defendants in the case were entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim that they acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs when he threated self-harm. However, one defendant remains because the record did not establish a lack of objective harm. The lawyer would resolve the remaining claim.
18-CV-147 Walker v. Pollard
Decision and Order
The court determined that a state prisoner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to prove the allegations made in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
18-CV-1551 Roumann Consulting Inc et al v. Symbiont Contstruction Inc et al
Motion to Dismiss
The court dismissed a suit for claim splitting, which applies when a later-filed suit is duplicative of a pending suit in which no final judgment has been entered.
18-CV-1240 J3 Engineering Group LLC v. Mack Industries of Kalamazoo LLC et al
Decision
The defendant removed a suit alleging multiple breach of contract claims from state court under diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved for remand based on contractual forum-selection clauses requiring litigation in state court. The defendant moved to transfer based on state law. The court could not determine law governing validity of choice of law and forum selection clauses based on the parties’ briefs and arguments. The court denied both motions.
19-CR-58 US v. Ey Lao and Lola Chang
Decision and Order Denying Motion to Supress
Defendants Ey Lao and Lola Chang filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of law enforcement’s interactions with them after their car slid off the road during a March snowstorm in Brown County, Wisconsin. Defendants claim that they were “stopped, detained, seized and searched in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” and allege that they were illegally detained when the officer requested their drivers’ license documents and ordered them to remain in the vehicle without reasonable suspicion. Defendants also contend that, even if the request for identification was justified, that the warrantless search of a locked gun safe found hidden under Lola Chang’s shirt during a pat-down search of her person must be suppressed. The court held that the officer’s initial request for identification and decision to run defendants’ identities against a law enforcement database were reasonable, and the facts in this case were sufficient to establish the probable cause needed to justify a warrantless search of the gun safe.
