William C. Griesbach

In this bankruptcy appeal, Richard Van Dyn Hoven sought to discharge under Chapter 7 a portion of a personal guarantee debt owed to the Bank of Kaukauna, which arose when the bank covered overdrafts in his company's checking account to pay $101,432.91 in payroll taxes to the IRS and Wisconsin Department of Revenue between October 2009 and April 2010. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the bank, finding the debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(14) and (14A). The district court reversed, holding that the exceptions did not apply. The court reasoned that those provisions target situations where a debtor deliberately substitutes dischargeable debt for nondischargeable tax liability, but here the bank knowingly extended credit to the business for ongoing operations amid its financial decline, with no evidence that Van Dyn Hoven incurred the overdrafts specifically to pay taxes or that the bank was an unwitting creditor. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The EEOC sued Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, alleging that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by disclosing an employee's confidential medical information about his migraine condition to a reference-checking agency. The court granted summary judgment to Thrivent, ruling that the disclosure did not violate the ADA's confidentiality requirements under section 102(d)(4) because the information was not obtained through a medical inquiry. The employee had voluntarily provided details about his migraines in an email responding to a request for an explanation of his unexcused absence from work. The court found that the employer's inquiry sought only a reason for the absence and was not likely to elicit disability-related information, making the disclosure voluntary rather than compelled.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves Elliot Don Ray's federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction on Sixth Amendment grounds. After the Seventh Circuit reversed an initial dismissal and remanded for consideration of timeliness, the district court addressed the state's motion to dismiss the petition as untimely under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations and Ray's cross-motion for summary judgment. Ray argued that his state post-conviction motion under Wis. Stat. § 974.06 was timely filed under the prison mailbox rule when he delivered it to prison officials in 2004, which would have tolled the federal limitations period. The court denied both motions, finding the existing record insufficient to resolve factual disputes over the filing date and ordering an evidentiary hearing to assess credibility and prison procedures.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Village of Hobart imposing storm water runoff fees on land within its boundaries that the United States held in trust for the Oneida Tribe of Indians, which the Tribe challenged through the Bureau of Indian Affairs as an improper tax. After the BIA regional director ruled for the Tribe and ordered the Village to cease collection efforts, the Village filed a third-party complaint against the United States alleging liability under the Clean Water Act's Section 313 and seeking APA review of the BIA decision plus a challenge to a federal regulation exempting trust land from local property rules. The court granted the United States' motion to dismiss, concluding that sovereign immunity barred the claims because the Village lacked authority to impose the fees on trust land and that the APA claims were not ripe absent final agency action.

environmentfederal powerpropertyprocedure

Wells Fargo Bank, acting as trustee for bondholders, sued the Sokaogon Chippewa Community and its wholly owned gaming enterprise over a 2006 bond transaction in which the Tribe borrowed over $19 million, agreeing to repay the debt with interest and to pledge casino revenues as security. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, arguing that the Tribe's waivers of sovereign immunity were invalid because the agreements lacked required federal approvals under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and 25 U.S.C. § 81. The court denied the motion, holding that it had jurisdiction because the waivers were valid and enforceable. It reasoned that the bond documents and related resolutions were not management contracts under IGRA and did not encumber Indian lands under § 81, as the pledged property was fee land rather than trust land and the negative pledge did not grant exclusive control to a third party.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

Plaintiff Ricky Cavanaugh sued his former employer, Oshkosh Corporation, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, claiming he faced disparate treatment and was terminated due to his age while working as a cab assembler and union steward. The court considered Oshkosh's motion for summary judgment, which asserted that Cavanaugh failed to show he met the company's legitimate expectations or that similarly situated younger employees received better treatment. The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issues of material fact because Cavanaugh's refusal to stop taking notes and return to work despite repeated supervisor instructions constituted insubordination justifying termination, his cited comparators were not similarly situated or substantially younger, and the policy changes regarding chairs and movement were not adverse employment actions. The decision rested on the absence of evidence supporting a prima facie case of discrimination under the applicable legal standards for summary judgment.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a subcontractor's claims against a prime contractor and its surety for unpaid concrete work on a federal Army Reserve construction project covered by the Miller Act, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and a Wisconsin prompt-payment statute. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part by dismissing the unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims without prejudice, while denying the motion as to the breach of contract, Miller Act, and state statutory claims. The core reasoning was that the complaint alleged a valid express subcontract governing the parties' relationship, which precluded alternative equitable claims absent any facts suggesting the contract was invalid or unenforceable, but the remaining claims sufficiently stated causes of action under federal and state law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Kaeser Compressors seeking a declaratory judgment that it has good cause to terminate its distributorship agreement with CPR under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, after the court partially granted summary judgment leaving only the questions of whether CPR qualifies as a dealership and whether good cause for termination exists. CPR demanded a jury trial on these issues, which Kaeser opposed on the ground that declaratory relief is equitable and should be tried to the court. The court held that CPR is entitled to a jury trial because the action is an "inverted lawsuit" that would normally arise as a legal damages claim brought by the dealer, and the Seventh Amendment preserves the jury right in such cases under federal law even though Wisconsin views declaratory relief as equitable. The court noted that precedents like Beacon Theatres require looking to the underlying nature of the claim rather than the form of relief requested, and it will also make its own findings to avoid retrial if the jury right is later overturned. The topics selected reflect the procedural focus on jury trials in a commercial dealership dispute.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Lisa Ann Dobrecevich-Voelkel's challenge to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her disability benefits application, where she claimed the ALJ failed to properly consider her migraine headaches, assess her residual functional capacity, evaluate vocational testimony, and determine her credibility. The court reviewed the ALJ's decision under the substantial evidence standard and found that while many determinations were supported, the ALJ did not adequately incorporate medical evidence of the plaintiff's moderate mental health limitations into the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert or explain the rejection of that evidence. As a result, the court remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings to develop the record regarding the plaintiff's mental health limitations in her residual functional capacity assessment.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

The case centered on whether Kaeser Compressors could terminate or alter its long-standing dealership relationship with CPR under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Act after CPR refused to sign a new uniform agreement that eliminated its exclusive territory and imposed other terms. Kaeser sought a declaratory judgment that good cause existed for termination because the changes were essential, reasonable, and applied to all similarly situated dealers, while CPR counterclaimed that the requirements violated the Act. The court granted summary judgment in part, holding that the new agreement was a commercially reasonable, non-discriminatory change that satisfied the Act's good-cause standard for the Wisconsin territory but that the Act did not apply to CPR's Minnesota territory because the dealership lacked sufficient Wisconsin connections. It dismissed CPR's counterclaims to the extent they challenged the Minnesota termination and allowed the case to proceed on remaining issues.

business & regulatory

The case involved Graphic Design Marketing, Inc. suing Xtreme Enterprises, Inc. and its owner for copyright infringement and related claims, alleging that Xtreme copied GDM's distinctive red header cards for packaging novelty vinyl stickers after Xtreme stopped distributing GDM's products. The court granted GDM's motion for a preliminary injunction in part, prohibiting Xtreme from further manufacturing or using the copied headers, requiring a recall notice to retailers, and impounding the infringing materials. The decision was based on GDM showing a likelihood of success on the copyright claim due to valid registration and clear evidence of copying, along with irreparable harm from continued infringement, favorable balance of hardships, and public interest in protecting copyrights and preventing market confusion.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a dispute over a contract between Harley Marine Services and Manitowoc Marine Group for the construction of a barge, where the plaintiffs alleged the vessel failed to meet contractual standards and brought claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, breach of the duty of good faith, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and enforcement of a guaranty against the parent company. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims for breach of the duty of good faith, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel without prejudice, finding them facially inconsistent with the existence of an express contract, but denied the motion as to the guaranty claim. The reasoning for dismissing the alternative claims was that federal pleading rules permit inconsistent theories only when they do not contradict the core allegations of a governing contract within the same counts, while the guaranty claim was deemed ripe because the agreement explicitly allowed the plaintiffs to enforce obligations directly against the parent company upon alleged injury, without needing a prior judgment against the subsidiary.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, a state prisoner at Green Bay Correctional Institution sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him out-of-cell exercise for nearly a year while on protective confinement status, and violations of his First Amendment free exercise rights and RLUIPA by denying him attendance at religious services and a meeting with an Imam. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the restrictions were justified by security concerns related to the prisoner's gang affiliation and safety threats, and that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the denials were necessary for legitimate penological interests and whether the prolonged lack of exercise posed a constitutional violation, and ruling that the relevant constitutional rights were clearly established such that qualified immunity did not apply.

criminal lawcivil rightsreligious liberty

In this case, an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after being restrained for five days following his ingestion of stolen keys, claiming violations of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the restraints were a necessary security measure to prevent the inmate from regaining control of the keys rather than punishment, and that the conditions did not constitute a constitutional violation. The court also determined that due process protections were not required because the restraint was not disciplinary in nature, and qualified immunity protected the officials given the lack of clear precedent.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involves current and former employees of Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc., a foundry operator, who filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking compensation for time spent donning and doffing protective gear, uniforms, and showering before and after shifts. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the compensability of these activities, while the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment arguing the activities were not work or were non-compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act. The court denied both summary judgment motions, finding significant disputes of material fact over what personal protective equipment was required for all employees, whether the activities had to occur at the worksite, and the extent to which employees performed them off the clock. The court also denied related motions to exclude expert declarations and to strike certain filings, concluding that further discovery was needed before resolving the claims.

labor & employment

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Latentier, LLC against International Paper Co. concerning U.S. Patent No. 6,157,916, which describes a method for optimizing the operating speed of papermaking machinery by calculating marginal costs, inflows, and outflows to minimize expenses. The defendant asserted counterclaims of inequitable conduct, alleging that the inventor failed to timely disclose a 1980 publication and prior commercial uses of similar processes to the Patent and Trademark Office. The court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on the inequitable conduct claims, concluding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the inventor's intent to deceive, despite finding the undisclosed information material. It granted a motion for a bench trial on those claims, allowed amendment of the complaint to add a trade secret claim, and resolved several other procedural motions.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves plaintiffs alleging age discrimination in connection with reductions-in-force by defendant Kimberly-Clark between 2005 and 2009. Plaintiffs moved to compel responses to an interrogatory seeking details on more than 50 additional RIFs during the class period, beyond the seven or eight directly at issue, to evaluate whether the company properly identified and disclosed the decisional units for employee waivers under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act. The court granted the motion to compel, reasoning that information about other RIFs could be relevant to determining the actual scope of the decisional units used in the terminations at issue and whether the disclosures met statutory requirements for knowing and voluntary waivers. The court noted that while discovery should not become a fishing expedition, plaintiffs were entitled to investigate the legitimacy of the company's self-described decisional units rather than accept them at face value.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Yangaroo's claim that Destiny infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,529,712, which describes a method for securely distributing digital content like music or video over a network from providers to authorized recipients such as radio stations. Destiny moved for summary judgment, arguing its accused MPE system operated via servers located outside the United States and thus fell beyond the reach of U.S. patent law. The court granted the motion, holding that the patent's single claim covers only a method of distributing preexisting content rather than manufacturing a new product, so liability could not arise under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) for any steps performed abroad. The court noted that even if encryption occurred on foreign servers, that process was not claimed in the patent and did not transform the distribution method into a manufacturing process. Destiny's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement dispute where Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. sued First Quality Baby Products, LLC for allegedly infringing four patents related to methods of manufacturing disposable training pants with refastenable side seams. The court granted Kimberly-Clark's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining First Quality from making, using, selling, or importing the infringing manufacturing methods in the United States. The decision was based on findings that Kimberly-Clark demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits by showing probable infringement and validity of the patents, along with irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships, and public interest considerations. The injunction was stayed for thirty days and conditioned on Kimberly-Clark posting a $39 million bond.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned whether Manitowoc County's longstanding practice of permitting a Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn during the Christmas season violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the county and its officials over the display, which had been erected annually by a private group since 1946. After the lawsuit began, the county adopted a written policy governing displays on courthouse grounds that allowed such exhibits without regard to religious content. The court held that the new policy rendered the original complaint moot and that any amendment to challenge the policy would be futile, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the case. The decision rested on the principle that federal courts may not issue advisory opinions on controversies that have ended.

religious libertycivil rightsfree speech