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.

26-CV-786 Americans for Citizen Voting PAC v. Meagan Wolfe et al

Opinion

Plaintiff Americans for Citizen Voting PAC sued the members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, who is represented by the Wisconsin Attorney General, challenging the constitutionality of an elections law. The Wisconsin Legislature moved to intervene, based primarily upon a Wisconsin statute that it claims gives it an interest in the litigation. The Court found that the statute is unconstitutional under the Wisconsin constitution as applied to the facts of the case. Therefore, the statute cannot convey an interest in the litigation. Moreover, any interest the legislature does have is adequately represented by the existing parties. Therefore, the Court denies the motion to intervene.

File:
PDF icon 26-CV-786 Americans for Citizen Voting PAC v. Meagan Wolfe et al.pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Tuesday, July 14, 2026

25-CV-131 Nehls et al v. Parker et al

Order

Plaintiffs alleged that three defendant police officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights when the officers entered their home after arriving to investigate allegations of disorderly conduct from earlier that day at an elementary school. The court found that exigent circumstances did not justify the officers’ entry into the home and they were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the unlawful entry into the home. A trial is currently scheduled in October 2026 to determine damages.

File:
PDF icon 25-CV-131 Nehls et al v. Parker et al (49).pdf
Judge:
William E. Duffin
Date:
Thursday, May 28, 2026

25-CV-1964 Thompson v. Ascension Medical Group Southeast Wisconsin Inc et al

Decision and Order

Plaintiff filed this action asserting thirteen claims stemming from alleged violations of an employment contract, wrongful termination, and enforcement of unreasonably restrictive covenants. Plaintiff is a family medicine physician who disputes the interpretation of her contract for part-time work. She also alleges that she was terminated due to her age and replaced by a worker under 40 years old. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss 10 of the 13 claims but allowed the claims for age discrimination, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of state law on restrictive covenants to proceed.

File:
PDF icon 25-CV-1964 Thompson v. Ascension Medical Group Southeast Wisconsin Inc et al (19).pdf
Judge:
William E. Duffin
Date:
Thursday, April 30, 2026

24-CV-1206 Van Elzen v. American Home Shield

Decision and Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 27 U.S.C. § 227, alleging Defendant contacted him four times via text message regarding a home warranty, despite his registration on the “Do Not Call List.”  Defendant claimed that Plaintiff requested information and consented to receiving text messages and, alternatively, that it was not liable because it complied with the “safe harbor” provisions of the TCPA and underlying regulations.   The Court concluded a factual dispute precluded summary judgment in Defendant’s favor on the issue of consent, but that the safe harbor provision applied.

File:
PDF icon 24-CV-1206 Van Elzen v. American Home Shield (47).pdf
Judge:
William C. Griesbach
Date:
Tuesday, April 21, 2026

24-CV-1460 Faulman Investment Ltd v. Engineered Products and Services Inc et al

Order

Third-party defendants move to dismiss various claims in a third-party complaint. The complaint included breach of contract, negligence, and misrepresentation claims all based upon the same conduct. Applying Wisconsin choice-of-law rules, the Court found that Wisconsin and Florida laws conflict as to whether the tort claims are barred under Wisconsin's economic loss doctrine and Florida's independent tort doctrine. Ultimately, the Court applied Wisconsin law, dismissing the tort claims. The Court also dismissed claims for an accounting, a constructive trust, and unjust enrichment, and permitted the intervention of defendant's insurance company.

File:
PDF icon 24-CV-1460 Faulman Investment Ltd v. Engineered Products and Services Inc et al.pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Thursday, April 9, 2026

Pages