A stinging rejection of same-sex marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana, issued by a unanimous and unequivocal U.S. appeals court, has brought hope to those fighting the laws that the U.S. Supreme Court will feel pressure to rule soon in their favor.
A federal appeals court has upheld decisions by Wisconsin and Indiana judges to strike down their respective state's bans on same-sex marriage.
Federal appeals judges bristled on Tuesday at arguments defending gay marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin, with one Republican appointee comparing them to now-defunct laws that once outlawed weddings between blacks and whites.
The best way to write an opinion is the subject of some debate, but there is no denying that a concise, no-words-minced ruling that cuts through the unnecessary legalese and posturing is an easier and more enjoyable read, and thus, one more likely to affect more people.
Not every judge would feel comfortable writing in an opinion that “the sight of a shackled litigant is apt to make jurors think they’re dealing with a mad dog.”
Trust is at the heart of the court system.
An emerging pattern of aggressive and often baseless lawsuits from three litigious Madison residents is irritating judges and lawyers in state and federal courts.
Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner is raising eyebrows with this opinion, in which he gleefully admits that he went out and bought safety equipment and timed three clerks as they put it on and took it off in chambers in order to test the reasonableness of the poultry-plant workers’ claims in a “donning and doffing” case.
A Madison woman who performs as “The Banana Lady” – and has filed several pro se lawsuits against people she claims damaged that image – had another appeal shot down Monday.
A Kenosha-based construction company might be on the hook for more than $1 million in settlement and legal fees stemming from a 2009 injury at the St. Catherine’s Medical Center construction site.
The latest rejection of Milwaukee County’s attempt to levy real estate transfer taxes on two federal enterprises reinforces an emerging national trend.
An appellate court on Tuesday questioned a lawyer for the state of Wisconsin about why lawmakers singled out abortion clinics in requiring their doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, as judges heard arguments about a hotly debated law.
- Wisconsin Assembly approves increases in out-of-state outdoor license fees to help close deficit
- Assembly OKs bill to suspend doe hunting in northern Wisconsin in attempt to regrow herd
- Wisconsin lawmakers OK bill to tackle forever chemicals pollution, but governor isn’t on board
- A man accused of stabbing another passenger on a Seattle to Las Vegas flight charged with assault
- Could gunowners face charges if kids access unlocked weapons? State laws differ
- EPA approves year-round sales of higher ethanol blend in Wisconsin, other states
- Former Black schools leader radio interview brings focus on race issues in Green Bay
- Parts of a Martin Luther King Jr. memorial in Denver have been stolen
- Right to contraception rejected by Wisconsin Assembly Republicans
- Planned Parenthood asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to find 1849 abortion law unconstitutional
- Alabama’s frozen embryo ruling is having its first effects
- Marquette Law School Poll: National survey shows Trump win over Biden
- 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