21-CV-243 Gatzke, et al v. City of West Bend, et al
Decision and Order
The court dismissed a claim under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 for failure to give the alleged violator proper pre-suit notice of the alleged violations. The court determined that the notice was defective because it did not provide information sufficient for the alleged violator to determine the date or dates of the alleged violations.
20-CV-349 Conforti v. City of Franklin
Decision and Order
In a case alleging that the defendant police officers used excessive force during an arrest, the court held that an officer could be liable both for using excessive force and for failing to intervene in his partner’s use of excessive force. However, the plaintiff could not recover damages twice for the same injuries.
21-CV-447 Camelot Banquet Rooms v. US Small Business Administration
Order
In a prior order, the court enjoined the U.S. Small Business Administration from excluding strip clubs from the second-draw Paycheck Protection Program because they present “live performances of a prurient sexual nature.” In this order, the court denied the government’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal.
21-CV-447 Camelot Banquet Rooms v. US Small Business Administration
Decision and Order
20-CV-2034 Joy Global v. Columbia Casualty Company
Decision and Order
21-MC-17 Qi Qin v. Paul Deslongchamps
Order regarding Petition to Perpetuate Testimony
21-CV-77 Asphalt Contractors v. R&J Transport Inc, et al
Decision and Order
20-CV-1377 Hughes, et al v. Miller, et al
Decision and Order
The court dismissed a frivolous complaint filed by serial pro se litigators and enjoined them from commencing additional, similar suits in any state or federal court.
20-CV-1305 Heidi Anderson, et al v. Elmbrook School District, et al
Decision and Order
20-CV-1305 Heidi Anderson, et al v. Dr. Mark Hansen, et al
Decision and Order
The court preliminarily enjoined a school district’s policy requiring a student’s parent to obtain advance permission to enter school grounds to conduct routine activities such as attending her daughter’s dance recitals. The court found that the policy was issued to punish the parent for expressing unpopular views at a school board meeting and therefore was issued in violation of the First Amendment’s free speech clause.
