Weekly Case Digests — July 30-August 3, 2018

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Digests

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Anthony Kaminski v. Nancy A. Berryhill

Case No.: 17-3314

Officials: MANION, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits

In 2000, Anthony Kaminski fell down a flight of stairs, suffering a head wound that caused a traumatic brain injury and a seizure disorder. Thirteen years later, he applied under the Social Security Act for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Social Security Administration denied his applications, and the district court upheld the denial. Kaminski appeals, arguing that the administrative law judge improperly rejected his treating physician’s opinions. We agree with Kaminski. Because the treating physician’s opinions and the testimony of the vocational expert together show that Kaminski is disabled, we remand the case to the agency with instructions to award benefits to Kaminski.

Reversed and Remanded

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Scott Robinett v. City of Indianapolis

Case No.: 17-2609

Officials: BAUER, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Statutory Interpretation – Indemnification

Scott Robinett and the City of Indianapolis were co-defendants in a civil-rights action. Robinett, a police officer, was accused of failing to intervene in an escalating domestic dispute between two fellow police officers. The dispute ended violently in a tragic murder-suicide, and the murder victim’s estate asserted claims against Robinett and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Indiana law. They won the case; the district judge rejected the estate’s claims and entered summary judgment for the defendants. Robinett then asked the judge to order the City to pay his attorney’s fees and costs under Indiana Code § 34-13-4-, a public-employee indemnification statute. The judge denied the motion and Robinett appeals.

We affirm. The indemnification statute requires a public employer to pay defense costs in a civil-rights action against an employee only if the employee was acting within the scope of his employment when he committed the act or omission in question. A mere allegation to that effect does not trigger the indemnification obligation. The judge held that Robinett acted outside the scope of his employment during the events at issue here; that is, he acted as a private person, not a police officer. Robinett does not challenge that factual determination, so his claim for costs and fees fails.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Maurice L. Wallace v. John Baldwin, et al.

Case No.: 17-2427

Officials: MANION, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

Focus: 8^th Amendment Violation – Imminent Danger

Plaintiff Maurice Wallace was convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole in 2006. A few months after he entered prison, he assaulted a guard. He has been in solitary confinement (euphemistically called “disciplinary segregation”) ever since—for at least eleven years. He is seriously mentally ill. He also poses challenges to both prison officials and federal courts.

Wallace lodged with the district court a proposed complaint against prison officials and the Illinois Department of Corrections. He alleges that his prolonged isolation exacerbates his mental illness, increases his risk of suicide, and violates his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He is unable to pay the civil filing fee in advance, so he also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The district court ruled that Wallace cannot proceed in forma pauperis because he has received three “strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act for frivolous cases and did not qualify for the statutory exception for a prisoner who is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Wallace appeals that denial. He was not allowed to proceed in the district court, and the named defendants have not appeared in either the district court or on appeal. We recruited counsel for Wallace, and they have represented him ably. With better‐developed arguments and with the benefit of Sanders v. Melvin, 873 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2017), decided after the district court’s decision in this case, we conclude that the district court’s reasons for denying in forma pauperis status were erroneous. Wallace has alleged sufficiently that he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. He also has not yet received three “strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Vacated and Remanded

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Illinois Department of Revenue v. Hanmi Bank, et al.

Case No.: 17-1575; 17-2004

Officials: BAUER, FLAUM, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Bankruptcy – Bulk Sales Provisions

The bankrupt businesses in both of these consolidated appeals had debts that far exceeded the value of their assets. The bankruptcy court authorized the sale of the firms’ principal assets (several gasoline service stations and a movie theater and café), and those sales qualified as bulk sales under Illinois statutes we shall refer to as the Bulk Sales Provisions. Among other things, the Bulk Sales Provisions give the Illinois Department of Revenue (“IDOR”) the right to pursue the purchaser in a bulk sale for state taxes owed by the seller. However, in order to facilitate sale of the debtors’ properties, the bankruptcy court, pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, allowed the sales to proceed free and clear of the interests in those properties held by any entity other than the bankruptcy estates, including IDOR’s interest under the Bulk Sales Provisions. 11 U.S.C. § 363(f). This meant that IDOR lost its right to impose successor liability on the purchasers for the taxes owed by the sellers. Pursuant to section 363(e) of the Code, a party whose interest has been removed from property in this way is entitled to “adequate protection,” which typically takes the form of a payment from the sale proceeds to compensate the party for the decrease in value of its interest. See id. §§ 361, 363; Precision Indus., Inc. v. Qualitech Steel SBQ, LLC, 327 F.3d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 2003). The bankruptcy court in each case below agreed or assumed that IDOR was entitled to adequate protection for its interest under section 363. But the court also went on to conclude that because the sale proceeds were insufficient to satisfy the claims of the senior-most creditors (the banks that held the mortgages on the properties), IDOR was entitled to no portion of the sale proceeds; to grant IDOR any share in those proceeds would be to impermissibly allow it to “jump the queue” of creditors. And because there were no other assets available from which to compensate junior creditors like IDOR, IDOR was left with nothing.

IDOR contends that the bankruptcy court’s disposition fails to account for its authority, which other creditors did not enjoy, to pursue not only the debtor but the purchaser of the debtors’ property—personally—for unpaid taxes. When the bankruptcy court authorized the sale of the debtors’ properties in these cases free and clear of IDOR’s interest, it made the properties much more attractive to prospective purchasers than they otherwise would have been. Consequently, in IDOR’s view, the final sale price for the properties necessarily included consideration for the removal of IDOR’s interest, and it is entitled to a share of the sale proceeds pursuant to sections 361 and 363(e) to compensate it accordingly.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s judgments. We agree with IDOR that the Bulk Sales Provisions give it a powerful means of securing payment for delinquent taxes that most other creditors lack, and that removal of IDOR’s interest likely increased the price bidders were willing to pay for the debtors’ properties in these cases. But assuming that IDOR’s interest is cognizable under section 363, it has not given us a realistic assessment of the value of its interest. IDOR’s position in these appeals is that it is entitled to a share of the sale proceeds equal to 100 percent of the taxes it was authorized to collect from the purchasers, given that it was forced to give up its right to pursue the purchasers for those taxes. As we explain, however, we are skeptical of the notion that IDOR necessarily would have recovered 100 percent of the tax delinquency from an informed purchaser; and although IDOR might have been able to strike a deal with the purchaser and the seller’s senior creditors giving it some lesser payment on the outstanding taxes, IDOR has offered no evidence to establish what its potential recovery might have been. In short, its claims were properly denied for want of evidence enabling the bankruptcy court to assign a reasonable value to its interest for purposes of section 363(e).

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Ronald Norweathers, et al.

Case No.: 17-1311

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Admissibility of Evidence

A jury convicted Ronald Norweathers of two counts of transporting child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography. Prior to trial, the government sought a ruling on the admissibility of an email exchange between Norweathers and another individual, in which they discussed drugging and having sex with young boys. The district court ruled the evidence was admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b), and the government introduced it at trial. On appeal, Norweathers contends the admission of the emails was an error that deprived him of a fair trial. We affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Theresa Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah, et al.

Case No.: 17-3380

Officials: BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and MANION, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Qualified Immunity

Brian Flatoff’s decision to take individuals hostage at a motorcycle shop in Neenah, Wisconsin, had tragic consequences for Michael Funk. After managing to escape from Flatoff, Funk was shot and killed in the alleyway behind the shop by two officers of the Neenah Police Department (NPD), Craig Hoffer and Robert Ross. Unfortunately, they mistakenly believed Funk was Flatoff.

Funk’s wife, Theresa Mason‐Funk, brought this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officers Hoffer and Ross, as well as the City of Neenah (collectively, Defendants), alleging that both officers used unreasonable and excessive force against Funk. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, finding that the officers’ conduct was not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that even if their conduct was unreasonable, they were shielded from liability by qualified immunity. We conclude that the qualified immunity issue is dispositive and affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Jon Giles v. Gabrielle Tobeck, et al.

Case No.: 17-1707

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges

Focus: 8th Amendment Violation

Jon Giles, an inmate at Jerome Combs Detention Center, was punched and bitten when he tried to protect his cellmate from a violent detainee’s assault. Giles sued several correctional officers, asserting that they failed to protect him from the attack in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants. Because a reasonable jury would be required to find from the undisputed evidence that the officers were not reckless, and that they responded reasonably both to the risk of an attack and the actual attack, we affirm the judgment.

As this is an appeal from the entry of summary judgment, we recount the facts in the light most favorable to Giles, the nonmovant. See Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017). Giles’s attacker, Kendrick Moore, had a history of violent interactions with inmates and correctional staff at the Center. Although Moore at one point was housed in segregation in a maximum‐security area, he had been placed on suicide watch shortly before the attack and moved to the first floor of a general‐population section of the prison called “E‐POD,” where he could more easily be monitored. While in E‐POD, Moore stayed alone in his cell and would be let out each day for only one hour, when no other detainees were to be released from their cells.

Given the preceding analysis, summary judgment was properly entered in the defendants’ favor. We therefore need not address the defendants’ remaining arguments. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Lisa Mitchell v. Kevin Kallas, et al.

Case No.: 16-3350

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Circuit Judge, and BUCKLO, District Judge.

Focus: DOC Obligations – Medical Care of Prisoner

Lisa Mitchell is a transgender person who has identified as a woman her entire life. After an arrest in Wisconsin, officials from the state’s Department of Corrections (“DOC”) repeatedly prevented Mitchell from obtaining access to the treatments she needed to express her gender identity. It took DOC over a year to evaluate Mitchell’s candidacy for hormone therapy, and even then, nothing happened. Instead, DOC refused to provide Mitchell with the treatment its own expert recommended, on the ground that Mitchell was within a month of release from the prison. Although DOC’s Mental Health Director, Dr. Kevin Kallas, encouraged Mitchell to find a community provider to prescribe her hormones, DOC parole officers prevented Mitchell from following this advice. Still under state custody, the terms of Mitchell’s parole actually prohibited her from taking hormones or dressing as a woman.

Mitchell sued, contending that the prison doctors and the parole officers violated her constitutional rights. It is well established that persons in criminal custody are entirely dependent on the state for their medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976). Prison officials thus have a constitutional duty to provide inmates with the care they require for their serious medical needs. Prison staff cannot bide their time and wait for an inmate’s sentence to expire before providing necessary treatments. This affirmative obligation ends when imprisonment does, but state officials may not block a parolee from independently obtaining health care. The only limitation is that the condition be serious enough to trigger constitutional protection; otherwise the nature of the disorder is irrelevant. Because the district court prematurely rejected some of Mitchell’s claims, we reverse in part.

Reversed in part.

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Joshua Vasquez, et al. v. Kimberly M. Foxx

Case No.: 17-1061

Officials: BAUER, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Due Process Violation

Joshua Vasquez and Miguel Cardona are convicted child sex offenders who live in Chicago and are required to register as sex offenders and comply with state restrictions on where they may live. For example, a child sex offender may not knowingly live within 500 feet of a school, playground, or child-care center. 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/11-9.3(b-5), (b-10). A few years after Vasquez and Cardona were convicted, Illinois added child day-care homes and group day-care homes to the list of places included in the 500-foot residential buffer zone. § 5/11-9.3(b10). When Vasquez and Cardona updated their sex-offender registrations in August 2016, the Chicago Police Department told them they had to move because child day-care homes had opened up within 500 feet of their residences. The Department gave them 30 days to come into compliance with the statute.

Vasquez and Cardona sued the City of Chicago and Kimberly M. Foxx, the Cook County State’s Attorney, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on four alleged constitutional violations. First, they claimed that the amendment to the residency statute imposes retroactive punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Next, they alleged that applying the amended statute to them amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Finally, they asserted two due-process claims, one procedural and one substantive: they complained that the statute is enforced without a hearing for an individualized risk assessment and is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

The district judge rejected each claim at the pleadings stage and we affirm. Under Supreme Court and circuit precedent, the amended statute is neither impermissibly retroactive nor punitive, so it raises no ex post facto concerns. The plaintiffs’ claim under the Takings Clause fails for two independent reasons: it is unexhausted and the amendment was adopted before they acquired their homes, so it did not alter their property-rights expectations. The procedural due-process claim is a nonstarter for the straightforward reason that there is no right to a hearing to establish a fact not material to the statute. And the law is not unconstitutional in substance: it easily satisfies rational-basis review.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Nicholas Knopick, et al. v. Jayco, Inc.

Case No.: 17-2285

Officials: FLAUM, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Vehicle Warranty

In his telling, plaintiff Nicholas Knopick bought a $415,000 jalopy, but to be more precise, a limited liability company he controls bought the $415,000 jalopy. This factual shift determines the outcome of this case. Knopick has sued the manufacturer under the vehicle’s express limited warranty. That warranty does not cover the vehicle because the warranty excludes from coverage all vehicles purchased by business entities—like limited liability companies. The district court granted summary judgment to the manufacturer. We affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Emma Cehovic-Dixneuf v. Lisa Wong

Case No.: 17-1532

Officials: BAUER, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Focus: ERISA – Insurance Benefits Beneficiary

The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) requires administrators of employee benefit plans to comply with the documents that control the plans. 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(D). In the case of life insurance policies, that means death benefits are paid to the beneficiary designated in the policy, notwithstanding equitable arguments or claims that others might assert. In this case, the deceased employee was Georges Cehovic, whose employer offered its employees an insurance benefit plan through ReliaStar Life Insurance Company. Georges had two policies under the plan with ReliaStar: a basic life insurance policy with a death benefit of $263,000, and a supplemental life insurance policy with a death benefit of $788,000. On both policies, Georges listed his sister, plaintiff Emma Cehovic‐Dixneuf, as the sole and primary beneficiary. After Georges died, his ex‐wife, defendant Lisa Wong, claimed that she and the child she had with Georges were entitled to the death benefits from the supplemental policy. Any equitable arguments Wong might make can gain no traction, however, if the supplemental life insurance policy is covered by ERISA.

The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiff Cehovic‐Dixneuf, finding that the supplemental life insurance policy is indeed covered by ERISA. We affirm. Defendant Wong failed to offer evidence to the district court showing any genuine issue of any fact material to the case. She did not present her evidentiary objections to Cehovic‐Dixneuf’s evidence in the district court when she could and should have.

We see no abuse of discretion by the district judge in denying the Rule 59(e) motion. In denying a motion to reconsider a summary judgment opinion, in a passage quoted by other courts literally hundreds of times, the late Judge Shadur wrote thirty years ago that “this Court’s opinions are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (denying motion to reconsider certain conclusions in summary judgment decision); see also, e.g., Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996) (“A party seeking to defeat a motion for summary judgment is required to ‘wheel out all its artillery to defeat it.’”), quoting Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Bodi‐Wachs Aviation Ins. Agency, Inc., 846 F. Supp. 677, 685 (N.D. Ill. 1994); Fast Tek Group, LLC v. Plastech Engineered Products, Inc., No. 1:05‐cv‐1868, 2006 WL 3409171, *5 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 27, 2006) (denying motion to reconsider grant of summary judgment relying on new arguments and new evidence); Pickett v. Prince, 5 F. Supp. 2d 595, 596–97 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (collecting cases and denying motion to reconsider grant of summary judgment based on argument not raised in original briefing). Having decided the motion before it correctly, on the briefs and record before it, the district court was not required to vacate that decision to allow Wong to start all over again on the basis of arguments she could and should have made earlier.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, et al. v. Kohl’s Corporation, et al.

Case No.: 17-2697

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges

In September 2011, Kohl’s Corporation announced that it was correcting several years of its financial filings because of multiple lease accounting errors. Hard on the heels of that announcement came a putative class action complaint. The plaintiffs, led by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, allege that Kohl’s and two of its executives defrauded investors by publishing false and misleading information in the lead-up to the corrections. (For ease of exposition, we refer to the putative class as the Pension Fund.) The Pension Fund took the position that one can infer that the defendants knew that these statements were false or recklessly disregarded that possibility at the time they were made, because Kohl’s recently had made similar lease accounting errors. Despite those earlier errors, it was pursuing aggressive investments in its leased properties, and at the same time, company insiders sold considerable amounts of stock.

The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to meet the enhanced pleading requirements for scienter imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). The court entered that dismissal with prejudice, declining to give the Pension Fund even one opportunity to amend to cure the defects. The Pension Fund now appeals both the dismissal of the complaint and the district court’s decision to enter it with prejudice. Because the first complaint fell short and the Pension Fund has not been able to suggest how an amendment might help, we affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Karum Holdings LLC, et al. v. Lowe’s Companies, Incorporated, et al.

Case No.: 18-1007; 18-1074

Officials: BAUER, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Breach of Contract

When Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (Lowe’s Inc.) expanded its retail home improvement stores into Mexico, Lowe’s Companies Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Lowe’s Mexico) contracted with Karum Holdings LLC and a few of its subsidiaries, Karum Group LLC, and Karum Card Services S.A. de C.V., SOFOM, E.N.R. (collectively, Karum), to provide private label credit card services there. The program failed to meet expectations, and Karum brought this lawsuit against both Lowe’s Inc. and Lowe’s Mexico (collectively, Lowe’s) claiming breach of contract.

The focus of this appeal is Karum’s proof of damages and expert disclosures, or lack thereof. Early on, Karum disclosed its summary “damages model,” a 37-page estimate of damages with hundreds of figures contained in charts and graphs. Karum intended to have its Chairman and former CEO Peter Johnson and/or its current CEO and CFO Russell Ouchida present the damages model at trial as lay opinion testimony; Karum never retained a damages expert. Two months before trial, Lowe’s filed a motion in limine to preclude Johnson and Ouchida from testifying as to the damages model because any testimony regarding the model required the specialized knowledge of an expert. The district court granted the motion, finding that Karum had never properly disclosed an expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). Since this was a case-dispositive sanction, the court granted judgment in favor of Lowe’s and Karum appealed. We affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Arjun Dhakal v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III

Case No.: 17-3377

Officials: FLAUM and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges, and GETTLEMAN, District Judge.∗

Focus: Immigration – Asylum Claim

Arjun Dhakal, a native and citizen of Nepal, brought this action against the Attorney General and other executive branch defendants under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202. He asked the district court to review the decision of the Director of the Chicago Asylum Office, denying his application for asylum. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. They contended that Mr. Dhakal had not exhausted his administrative remedies and that the agency action is not final because the immigration courts have not yet passed upon his claim in removal proceedings. Mr. Dhakal remains in lawful status in the United States; he has not been placed in removal proceedings and is therefore unable to access the ordinary channel for further intra-agency review of his asylum application. In his view, because he has exhausted all administrative remedies presently available to him, his claim is ripe, and he can seek review in the district court.
The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over his claim. Although we conclude that there is no jurisdictional bar, we agree with the Government that the decision Mr. Dhakal challenges is not a final agency action and, therefore, he is not entitled to relief under the APA. The statutory scheme for adjudication of asylum claims by the agency must be allowed to take its course. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing the case, but modify it to reflect that it is on the merits.

Affirmed

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals Digests

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Jovan T. Mull

Case No.: 2017AP1752-CR

Officials: Kessler, P.J., Brennan and Dugan, JJ.

Focus: Plea Withdrawal

Jovan T. Mull appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of first-degree reckless injury by use of a dangerous weapon, as a party to a crime, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 940.23(1)(a), 939.63(1)(b), and 939.05 (2015-16). Mull also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion seeking plea withdrawal. Mull asserts that he is entitled to a hearing on his postconviction motion for reasons discussed below. We reject his arguments and affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Misty Dawn Donough

Case No.: 17AP2000-CR

Officials: KESSLER, P.J.

Focus: OWI – Plea Withdrawal

Misty Dawn Donough appeals a judgment of conviction, following a no contest plea, of one count of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. We affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District II

Case Name: Nancy Zelman v. Town of Erin, et al.

Case No.: 2017AP1529

Officials: Neubauer, C.J., Gundrum and Hagedorn, JJ.

Focus: Time-barred – Certiorari Compliant

Nancy Zelman appeals pro se from the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to the Town of Erin, Plan Commission of the Town of Erin and Town Board of the Town of Erin (collectively “Respondents”). Zelman claims the court erred in granting summary judgment on the bases that the Town is not a proper party and her amended certiorari complaint was not timely filed. We agree the Town is not a proper party and was properly dismissed, but we conclude the amended complaint was timely filed and, therefore, summary judgment was improperly granted in favor of the Plan Commission and Town Board. Thus, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Recommended for Publication

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Adam E. Rogers

Case No.: 2017AP2029-CR

Officials: Lundsten, P.J., Sherman and Fitzpatrick, JJ.

Focus: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Adam Rogers appeals his conviction on twenty counts of possessing child pornography and an order denying his postconviction motion. Rogers seeks a new trial upon alternative theories of plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel, each based on the unchallenged admission of testimony from an expert witness as to whether Rogers had “knowingly” possessed the child pornography. We conclude that any error in the admission of the testimony was harmless, and that Rogers was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to object. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction and postconviction order.

Full Text

WI Supreme Court Digests

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James Eric Goldman

Case No.: 2018 WI 89

Focus: Attorney Disciplinary Hearing

We review a stipulation filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney James Eric Goldmann pursuant to SCR 22.12. In the stipulation, Attorney Goldmann does not contest that he committed all 38 acts of professional misconduct alleged by the OLR. He also does not contest that the revocation of his Wisconsin law license is appropriate discipline for his misconduct, along with a requirement that he comply with a monetary judgment obtained against him by a client regarding unearned advance fees.

After fully reviewing the matter, we approve the stipulation and revoke Attorney Goldmann’s Wisconsin law license. His transgressions leave us no choice: Attorney Goldmann has shown himself to be unwilling or unable to conform his conduct to the standards that are required to practice law in this state. We also adopt the stipulated requirement that he comply with his client’s monetary judgment against him. Finally, because this matter is being resolved without the appointment of a referee, and because the OLR has not sought costs, we impose no costs.

Affirmed

Concur:

Dissent:
Full Text

Did not say affirmed in part; just reversed in part.