Charles G. Hatchett, a Wisconsin resident, sued state election officials and a local district attorney seeking to block enforcement of Wisconsin statutes §§ 11.23 and 11.30 and related rules against him. The laws impose political action committee registration, record-keeping, reporting, and source-identification requirements on individuals who spend modest sums advocating for or against local ballot referendums. The court granted Hatchett’s motion for summary judgment, declared the provisions unconstitutional as applied to his referendum advocacy, and permanently enjoined their enforcement against him while denying the defendants’ cross-motion. It reasoned that the requirements impose severe burdens on core First Amendment political speech by individuals and are not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest, following the earlier as-applied ruling in Swaffer v. Cane.
This case involved beneficiaries of an irrevocable family trust suing Wachovia Bank as trustee for allegedly breaching fiduciary duties under Wisconsin law by exchanging two whole life insurance policies held in the trust for two no-lapse policies issued by an affiliate, resulting in lost cash value but generating commissions for the bank and its affiliate. The plaintiffs sought recovery of the surrendered policies' cash value, the commissions, lost dividends, and fees. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment on the breach claims and denied the beneficiaries' motion for partial summary judgment seeking disgorgement of $512,000 in commissions. The decision rested on the conclusion that the claims were equitable in nature and that the trustee's actions did not violate its duties, including application of the prudent investor rule.
This case involves a patent infringement dispute where Generac Power Systems Inc. accused Kohler Co. of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,230,345 related to an exercise method for electrical generators and engaging in unfair competition. Kohler counterclaimed that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, and requested reexamination by the Patent and Trademark Office. The court granted Kohler's motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the reexaminations, finding that the case was at an early stage, a stay would simplify the issues, and it would not unduly prejudice Generac. The court denied Generac's request for a preliminary injunction because Generac failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
The case involved probationary Milwaukee police officer Melissa Ramskugler, who was terminated by the police chief during her 16-month probationary training period without a hearing or appeal before the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. She sued, claiming the termination violated due process by depriving her of a property interest in her job and seeking reinstatement, back pay, and a hearing. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied her requests, granted the defendants' motion, and dismissed the case. The core reasoning was that under the labor contract, department rules, and Wisconsin law, probationary officers have no legitimate expectation of continued employment and thus no protected property interest, making due process protections inapplicable and allowing termination without cause or hearing.
The case concerned a Chapter 13 debtor who sought to strip off a wholly unsecured junior mortgage lien on her principal residence after receiving a Chapter 7 discharge four years earlier, which rendered her ineligible for a Chapter 13 discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(f)(1). The bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding against the lienholder, but the district court reversed, holding that the lien could be stripped off. The court reasoned that § 1322(b)(2) permits modification of the rights of holders of unsecured claims and that the antimodification exception applies only to claims that are at least partially secured under § 506(a); the lack of discharge eligibility does not alter this treatment of unsecured liens, though the plan must still satisfy the good-faith requirement of § 1325(a).
This case involved a dispute between pharmaceutical companies Bayer Healthcare and Norbrook Laboratories over Norbrook's attempt to assert § 112 patent invalidity defenses and counterclaims. Norbrook moved for reconsideration of an order striking its expert reports and amended interrogatory responses on those issues, or alternatively for leave to amend its pleadings to add the defenses. The court denied reconsideration, finding that Norbrook's arguments under Rule 41 and about local motion procedures were new and could have been raised earlier, and did not show manifest legal error or new evidence. However, the court granted leave to amend under Rule 15(a), concluding there was no undue delay or prejudice, which made the previously stricken materials relevant again and vacated the striking order.