18-CV-1551 Roumann Consulting Inc et al v. Symbiont Construction Inc et al
18-CV-1551 Roumann Consulting Inc et al v. Symbiont Construction Inc et al
Decision and Order
You are here
Lynn Adelman
16-CV-575 St Augustine School et al v. Evers et al
16-CV-575 St Augustine School et al v. Evers et al
Decision and Order
Radke v. City of Wauwatosa et al
21-CV-247 Radke v. City of Wauwatosa et al
Decision and Order
07-CV-303 Burton v. American Cyanamid Co et al
07-CV-303 Burton v. American Cyanamid Co et al
Decision and Order
Additional cases include 07-CV-303, 07-CV-441, 10-CV-75, 07-CV-864, 11-CV-55, 11-CV-425, and 14-CV-1423. The court denied a motion for reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision in which it dismissed claims brought by individuals injured by white lead carbonate under the doctrines of law of the case and issue preclusion.
20-CV-1342 Currie v. State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company
20-CV-1342 Currie v. State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Decision and Order
21-CV-691 Babcock v. Town of Sugar Creek
21-CV-691 Babcock v. Town of Sugar Creek
Decision and Order
21-CV-118 K.R. et al v. Baumhardt et al
21-CV-118 K.R. et al v. Baumhardt et al
Decision and Order
20-CV-1914 Abushawish et al v. Milwaukee County et al\
20-CV-1914 Abushawish et al v. Milwaukee County et al
Decision and Order
The court granted summary judgment in part to plaintiffs in a civil rights action finding that it was unreasonable for an officer to impound a vehicle after a traffic stop when the renter of the vehicle was at the scene and willing to drive the vehicle to a safer location. The court also found that the defendants had probable cause to arrest one of the plaintiffs for obstruction of an officer.
22-CV-305 Stencil et al v. Johnson et al
22-CV-305 Stencil et al v. Johnson et al
Decision and Order
15-CV-1469 Tate v. Pollard
15-CV-1469 Tate v. Pollard
Decision and Order
The court denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254 alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on the ground that the petitioner had not shown that his counsel failed to raise claims that were both obvious and clearly stronger than the claims counsel did raise.
Pages
