Free Newsletter
Sufficiency of Evidence
Daniel M. Wilson appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered upon a jury’s verdict, and the denial of his postconviction motion.
Motion to Suppress Evidence Denied
Robert Holmes appeals a judgment convicting him of manufacturing psilocin and maintaining a drug trafficking place.
Statutory Interpretation – Malpractice Actions
David and Kathryn Paynter sued Dr. James Hamp, alleging he negligently failed to diagnose David’s cancer.
Court Error – Equitable Contribution
Steven Ambrosius, Daniel Pamperin, and Sarah and David Felton (collectively, “the Ambrosius Group”) made numerous payments to Johnson Bank pursuant to their respective personal guaranties on a loan Johnson Bank issued to Riverside Group Investments, LLC (“Riverside”).
Petition to Reopen
Richard Hoeft, pro se, appeals an order denying his petition to reopen a small claims default judgment entered against him and in favor of Roger Byrd.
Court Error – Damages and Prejudgment Interest
These consolidated appeals challenge various aspects of a judgment entered on a split jury verdict in a long-running dispute between the Village of Park Forest, Illinois, and Thorncreek Apartments, a large housing complex located in the Village.
Due Process Violation – Property Interests
John Henricks (Henricks) pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution.
Breach of Contract – RICO Claims
The plaintiff in this case is a Singaporean shipping company.
Court Error – Improper Legal Standard
Petitioner Carlos Ayestas, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in a Texas court, argues that he was wrongfully denied funding for investigative services needed to prove his entitlement to federal habeas relief.
Statutory Interpretation – Tax Code
A clause in §7212(a) of the Internal Revenue Code makes it a felony “corruptly or by force” to “endeavo[r] to obstruct or imped[e] the due administration of this title.” 26 U. S. C. §7212(a).
Statutory Interpretation – Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998
This case presents two questions about the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), 112 Stat. 3227.
Polls
Loading ...Legal News
- Milwaukee County District Attorney, UWM police address Jewish threats
- With GOP convention over, Milwaukee weighs the benefits of hosting political rivals
- Secret Service head resigns as Congress formally investigates
- Milwaukee Police Department issues statement regarding video release policy
- GOP convention sets the stage for the Democratic convention in Chicago, activists and police say
- Survey: Harris has enough delegates to be nominee
- Outside the RNC, small Milwaukee businesses and their regulars tried to salvage a sluggish week
- Biden called to resign immediately after the president announces he won’t seek reelection
- Biden drops out of 2024 presidential race, endorses Harris
- Local PA cops allegedly thought Trump’s would-be assassin was Secret Service
- Biden-Lead Secret Service admits agency denied past requests by Trump’s campaign for tighter security
- Class action filed against Walgreens
Case Digests
- Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Double Jeopardy; Sentencing
- Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Sexual Assault-Prosecutorial Misconduct
- Contract-Negligence
- Criminal Law; Juvenile Law; Discovery
- Family Law; Child Support; Property Division First paragraph(s)
- Ineffective Assistance of Counsel- Exclusion of Evidence of Witness Bias
- Postconviction Relief-Sentencing-Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
- 14th Amendment – Due Process
- Criminal-Sentencing Guidelines – Enhancement
- Bankruptcy-Tax
- Civil Rights – 14th Amendment-Jury Instructions
- Contract; Foreclosure and Property
