Free Newsletter
2010AP2310 Dewindt v. Luedtke
Civil Rights Duty to protect Kirk Dewindt appeals from the judgment of the circuit court that dismissed his action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 2011) against Bruce Luedtke. Dewindt argues that the circuit court erred when it dismissed his claim. The circuit court determined that Dewindt had not stated a claim under § 1983 […]
10-114 Fox v. Vice
Civil Rights Attorney fees; frivolous claims When a plaintiff’s suit involves both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, a court may grant reasonable fees to the defendant, but only for costs that the defendant would not have incurred but for the frivolous claims. Congress’s purpose in enacting §1988—to relieve defendants of the burdens associated with fending off […]
10-2446 Marion v. Radtke
Civil Rights Prison conditions; due process The plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to determine whether 240 days in segregation at Columbia Correctional Institution is a deprivation of liberty under the Due Process Clause. “When answering Marion’s complaint, defendants denied that conditions in DS-1 confinement deprived him of liberty or property. Marion had to come […]
10-3957, 10-3965 & 11-1016 NRA v. City of Chicago
Civil Rights Attorney fees; prevailing party Litigants who prevailed in the U.S. Supreme Court are prevailing parties entitled to attorney fees, even if the defendants repealed the unconstitutional statutes before the district court could order them to on remand. “The municipalities insist that the Supreme Court’s decision addressed only ‘a preliminary legal issue that did […]
10-98 Ashcroft v. al-Kidd
Civil Rights Material witness statute The objectively reasonable arrest and detention of a material witness pursuant to a validly obtained warrant cannot be challenged as unconstitutional on the basis of allegations that the arresting authority had an improper motive. Whether a detention is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment “is predominantly an objective inquiry.” Indianapolis v. […[...]
09-1454 Camreta v. Greene
Civil Rights Qualified immunity; appeal The Court may review a lower court’s constitutional ruling at the behest of government officials who have won final judgment on qualified immunity grounds. This Article III standard often will be met when immunized officials seek to challenge a determination that their conduct violated the Constitution because that ruling may […]
Polls
Loading ...Legal News
- (Updated) Wisconsin law enforcement clash with pro-Palestinian Madison protestors
- Gov. Evers seeks applicants for Lafayette County Circuit Court
- Complaint against University filed by Wisconsin law firm over $1.9M given to Palestinian students
- Hush money trial judge raises threat of jail as he finds Trump violated gag order, fines him $9K
- Active shooter ‘neutralized’ outside Wisconsin middle school
- Audit finds Wisconsin Capitol Police emergency response times up, calls for better tracking
- Jury finds Wisconsin man sane in sexual assault, killing of toddler
- Attorney sentenced to 20 years in prison for sexually exploiting numerous children
- UW-Madison pro-Palestine protesters spark debate over free speech laws
- DEA to reclassify marijuana in a historic shift
- Wisconsin opens public comment on constitutional amendment regarding election officials
- Court upholds Milwaukee police officer’s firing for posting racist memes
WLJ People
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Russell Nicolet
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Benjamin Nicolet
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Dustin T. Woehl
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Katherine Metzger
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Joseph Ryan
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – James M. Ryan
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Dana Wachs
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Mark L. Thomsen
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Matthew Lein
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Jeffrey A. Pitman
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – William Pemberton
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Howard S. Sicula
