The case concerned a constitutional challenge by several Wisconsin public employee unions to provisions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, which divided public employees into “general” and “public safety” categories. The law preserved full unionization, collective bargaining, and dues collection rights for public safety employees and their unions while sharply limiting those rights for general employees, including by restricting bargaining to base wages only, requiring annual recertification by an absolute majority of members, and banning automatic dues deductions from paychecks. Plaintiffs argued that the distinctions violated the Equal Protection Clause and that the dues-withholding ban also violated the First Amendment. The court granted judgment to the defendants on the Equal Protection claims attacking the core limits on collective bargaining rights, finding a rational basis for those restrictions, but granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the recertification and dues-withholding provisions. It held that the state had no rational basis, consistent with the First Amendment, for extending automatic certification and dues deductions to favored public safety unions while denying them to general employee unions.
This case is a patent infringement lawsuit in which Douglas Dynamics alleges that Buyers Products' snowplow assemblies infringe five of its patents related to mounting systems and hydraulic/electrical components. On summary judgment motions addressing invalidity, the court granted Douglas's motion and denied Buyers' as to the '978 patent, finding no anticipation by a single prior art reference and no obviousness from combinations of prior art. The court denied Buyers' motion as to the '530 patent due to remaining genuine issues of material fact on invalidity. As to the '480 patent, the court granted Douglas's motion because Buyers provided no supporting evidence. For the '700 patent, the court denied both parties' motions and dismissed the invalidity counterclaim without prejudice, citing its prior finding of noninfringement.
This case is a patent infringement dispute in which Douglas Dynamics alleged that Buyers Products' SnowDogg snowplow assemblies infringed five of Douglas's patents covering snowplow mounting mechanisms, hydraulic systems, and headlight systems. Buyers denied infringement and asserted invalidity counterclaims. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted Douglas's motion as to literal infringement of the '530 and '978 patents, granted Buyers' motion as to noninfringement of the '480 and '700 patents, and denied both motions as to the '935 patent, which remains for trial. The rulings followed prior claim construction and rested on whether each asserted claim element was present in the accused products, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
This case involved a challenge by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and two of its members to a U.S. House concurrent resolution directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance and National Motto in the Capitol Visitor Center, claiming the action violated the Establishment Clause. The plaintiffs asserted standing based solely on their status as federal taxpayers. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of Article III standing, reasoning that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the narrow Flast v. Cohen exception to the general bar on taxpayer standing because the resolution did not involve a specific congressional appropriation or exercise of taxing and spending power under Article I, Section 8, and any requested relief would not redress the alleged injury. The analysis drew on Supreme Court precedents including Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation and Seventh Circuit cases applying those standards.
This case involved Wenfang Liu suing her ex-husband Timothy Mund to enforce an I-864 affidavit of support that he signed as part of her immigration application, in which he promised to maintain her at 125% of the federal poverty level under 8 U.S.C. § 1183a. After the couple married in China, obtained Liu's U.S. residency, moved to the United States, and then divorced, Liu sought monetary damages and ongoing support when Mund stopped providing assistance. The court denied Mund's late motion to amend his answer to add contract defenses due to undue delay and prejudice, granted Liu partial summary judgment on her damages claim after finding most facts undisputed and the affidavit created an enforceable federal obligation separate from the divorce proceedings, and ordered Mund to pay $10,394.74 while denying specific performance of future support pending further filings on Liu's income and mitigation efforts.
The case involved Cory Goecks suing Sheriff Scott Pedley under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating his constitutional liberty interest by making stigmatizing statements in an exit review memo that hindered his future employment in law enforcement. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the statements were made long after Goecks' resignation and thus were not incident to the termination of employment, as required to establish a liberty interest claim under Supreme Court precedent in Siegert v. Gilley.