25-CV-1964 Thompson v. Ascension Medical Group Southeast Wisconsin Inc et al
25-CV-1964 Thompson v. Ascension Medical Group Southeast Wisconsin Inc et al
Decision and Order
You are here
William E. Duffin
25-CV-131 Nehls et al v. Parker et al
25-CV-131 Nehls et al v. Parker et al
Order
25-CV-1250 Soo Line Railroad Company v. Village of Elm Grove
25-CV-1250 Soo Line Railroad Company v. Village of Elm Grove
Decision and Order
23-CV-948 Kuether v. Posley et al
23-CV-948 Kuether v. Posley et al
Decision and Order
23-CV-1327 Joshua L. Brown v. City of Racine et al
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.
24-CV-609 Vang v. Franceschi et al
24-CV-609 Vang v. Franceschi et al
Order
24-CR-71 United States v. Mann
24-CR-71 United States v. Mann
Order
The court denied the defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file pretrial motions. The court discussed how the Speedy Trial Act requires criminal cases to proceed expeditiously. “To be entitled to an extension, counsel must state, in detail, facts sufficient to enable the court to conclude both that: (1) he has made diligent efforts to comply with the court’s deadline; and (2) that despite those diligent efforts, the time afforded was unreasonable.”
20-CV-1874 Leibfried v. Caterpillar, Inc.
20-CV-1874 Leibfried v. Caterpillar, Inc.
Decision and Order
An expert cannot offer new opinions at a deposition or in an affidavit submitted in response to a motion to exclude. An expert’s opinions must be included in an expert report. A psychologist’s recollection of what his patients told him about the emotions they felt in the moments when they believed they were about to die is not a sufficient basis for the psychologist to offer an opinion about what the plaintiff felt in the minutes before he died.
22-CV-200 Herman v. Integrity Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
22-CV-200 Herman v. Integrity Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
Decision and Order
16-CV-685 McFarland-Lawson v. Fudge
16-CV-685 McFarland-Lawson v. Fudge
Decision and Order
The court granted the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed the plaintiff’s action. The only claim that remained was the same claim that the plaintiff raised in her union grievance. Because she did not exhaust her administrative remedies, the claim was not properly before the court.
Pages
