James Edward Doyle

This case concerns the scope of off-reservation usufructuary rights (to hunt, fish, and gather) reserved by the Lac Courte Oreilles Band and other Chippewa tribes under the 1837 and 1842 treaties with the United States, which were not extinguished by later executive or treaty actions. The district court, following appellate guidance, held that these rights persist on lands that are not privately owned, encompass all treaty-era and modern methods of harvesting animal, fish, and plant resources for subsistence and commercial sale, and may be exercised on private lands only if necessary for a modest living after appropriate arrangements. The court further ruled that the rights terminate on privately owned portions of the ceded territory and that the state may impose reasonable regulations necessary for resource conservation, while leaving questions of public safety regulation for later proceedings. These conclusions rest on the treaties' text, the tribes' historical understanding, and the mandate from prior Seventh Circuit decisions in LCO I and LCO II.

civil rightsfederal powerenvironmentproperty

This case concerns patents held by defendant WARF on vitamin D3 derivatives and plaintiff RIMAC's amended complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the patents are invalid, void, and unenforceable. Defendant moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that no case or controversy exists under Article III. The court defines the issue as whether a definite, real, and substantial controversy is presented that is appropriate for judicial determination rather than hypothetical or abstract, notes that the statutory actual controversy requirement mirrors the constitutional standard, and explains that it will resolve the motion after summarizing the complaint's allegations and making findings of fact on the record, including any relevant conduct by the parties.

procedurefederal power

This case involves claims by plaintiffs Tom Poquette and Dennis Jevne against Community State Bank and others for alleged securities fraud in connection with their 1980 purchases of stock in a racquetball club corporation, brought under federal securities laws, RICO, and Wisconsin securities statutes. The Bank moved to dismiss the claims based on those purchases, arguing they were barred by the statute of limitations in Wis. Stat. § 551.59(5). The court granted the motion, holding that the 1980 version of the limitations statute applied due to transition rules in Wis. Stat. § 990.06, which made the 1984 amendment inoperative for these transactions; under the 1980 version, the three-year period from the stock purchases in October and December 1980 had expired by the time the complaint was filed in July 1985.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case was a civil action brought by the EEOC against Green County, Wisconsin, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit claimed that the county paid female clerical/jailers lower wages than male counterparts performing substantially equal work between January 1982 and June 1984, following a merger of job classifications. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, finding that the wage disparity was established and not justified by any statutory exception such as a collective bargaining agreement or other factor other than sex. The court also ruled that a three-year statute of limitations applied because the violation was willful.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerned whether Wisconsin's property tax system, including tax credits under Chapter 20, Laws of 1981, violated the federal Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4-R Act) by imposing higher effective tax rates on railroad transportation property than on other commercial and industrial property. The railroads presented stipulated facts showing the average tax rates applied to their property for 1981-1983 and compared them to lower effective rates on general property categories after accounting for state tax credits. The court granted the railroads' renewed motion for summary judgment, declaring the tax rates applied in 1981 and 1983 discriminatory under 49 U.S.C. § 11503(b)(3) and enjoining the state from taxing railroad property at rates exceeding the average effective ad valorem rate on commercial and industrial property. The reasoning focused on direct comparison of effective rates, noting that the 4-R Act contains no de minimis exception for rate discrimination and that estimates in the data did not favor the state.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a plaintiff alleging that the University of Wisconsin-Madison denied her an assistant professor appointment in the Department of Poultry Science due to intentional sex discrimination. She brought claims under Title VII, Section 1983, and Title IX, seeking remedies including appointment to the position, back pay, and termination of federal funds to the university. The court addressed whether Title IX provides a viable private right of action in the employment context. The court held that Title IX does not imply such a right for individual victims of employment discrimination, as its enforcement is limited to administrative termination of funds by federal agencies under 20 U.S.C. § 1682, with judicial review available only to aggrieved institutions rather than bypassing that process for private litigants. This conclusion draws from the statute's text, legislative history, and precedents such as Cannon v. University of Chicago and North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, which distinguish between available remedies in different contexts.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

The case involves a plaintiff alleging deliberate sex discrimination that led to denial of state employment, with claims brought under Title IX, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved to dismiss the Title IX and § 1983 claims on the ground that Title VII provides the exclusive remedy. The court denied the motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim, holding that legislative history of the 1972 amendments to Title VII shows Congress's explicit intent to preserve pre-existing remedies such as § 1983 for state and local employees, in contrast to the federal-employment context addressed in Brown v. GSA. The court reserved decision on the Title IX claim pending further briefing on whether that statute permits an individual plaintiff to seek cutoff of federal funds, a remedy unavailable under Title VII. The opinion distinguishes the case from precedents finding implied exclusivity where legislative history was silent or inconclusive.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved claims by employers and pension plan trustees that an insurance company made false and misleading representations in connection with funding agreements for employee pension plans, which the plaintiffs alleged constituted violations of § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. The defendant moved to dismiss the § 17(a) claim, arguing that the provision does not create a private right of action for damages. The court examined Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit precedents, noting that the Supreme Court has not resolved the issue and that differences exist in the elements of proof required under § 17(a) compared to related antifraud provisions like Rule 10b-5. The court determined there was no legislative intent to imply a private remedy under § 17(a) and dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved multiple Chippewa Indian bands suing the State of Wisconsin and state officials for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief based on alleged infringements of federal treaty rights, including hunting and fishing rights. The court addressed the state's affirmative defense of Eleventh Amendment immunity to all claims. It held that 28 U.S.C. § 1362 abrogates the state's immunity, permitting suits by tribes in federal court for any type of relief. The core reasoning was that the statute's broad grant of original jurisdiction over federal-law actions brought by Indian tribes, aimed at eliminating the amount-in-controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, along with its legislative history, demonstrated Congress's intent to override immunity without restriction to land claims, prospective relief, or other limits.

civil rightsfederal power

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit brought by plaintiff Parson against defendant Roper Whitney, Inc., seeking damages for injuries from a hydraulic press brake manufactured and sold in 1972 by Peck, Stow & Wilcox Company under its Pexto/LVD line. Roper Whitney had purchased certain assets and product lines from Peck, Stow in 1976 via a cash asset sale but explicitly did not acquire the LVD line, and it never manufactured or assumed responsibility for such equipment. The court granted Roper Whitney's motion for summary judgment, holding that under Wisconsin law a corporation purchasing assets does not succeed to the seller's liabilities absent one of four narrow exceptions. The reasoning focused on the absence of any merger, continuation of the seller, or assumption of liability in the transaction, combined with the lack of continuity in ownership, management, or the specific product line at issue, and the fact that Peck, Stow remained an ongoing business while LVD continued manufacturing the relevant equipment independently.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves several railroad companies suing the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, alleging that the state's 1981 Property Tax Relief Law discriminates against rail transportation property in violation of the federal Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act (4-R Act), 49 U.S.C. § 11503. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief based solely on the 4-R Act, as the court lacked jurisdiction over related state constitutional claims under the Tax Injunction Act. The motion for summary judgment rested on stipulated facts detailing how Wisconsin assesses and taxes railroad property compared to general commercial and industrial property. The court denied the motion, finding that further clarification was needed to match the 4-R Act's categories with Wisconsin's tax classifications and to compute any rate discrepancies, while ruling that the Act's 5% threshold applies only to assessment ratio cases, not tax rate discrimination.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a challenge by a Wisconsin taxpayer and president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation to the constitutionality of Public Law 97-280, which authorized the President to designate 1983 as a national 'Year of the Bible,' claiming it violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by promoting religious teachings. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the President from issuing such a designation, alleging harm to her organization's mission and her personal beliefs as a non-theist. The court examined the complaint's allegations regarding standing and the factual record, including the law's passage and the likelihood of a presidential proclamation. It denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, determining that the plaintiff had not met the requirements for such relief based on the available evidence and jurisdictional considerations under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

religious libertycivil rights

The case concerned whether rental income received by the Gundersen Medical Foundation, a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, from leasing debt-financed real and personal property to the for-profit Gundersen Clinic constituted unrelated business taxable income under sections 511 and 514 of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS had assessed deficiencies for 1970-1974 on the grounds that a portion of the lease payments was taxable because it derived from debt-financed property not substantially related to the Foundation's exempt educational and research purposes, though the agency conceded varying percentages of the use was related. The Foundation paid the assessments and sued for a refund after its claims were denied. The court analyzed the facts, applied Revenue Rulings 69-463 and 69-464, and determined that the income was not taxable as unrelated business income to the extent the property use aligned with the exempt functions.

taxeshealthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a claim by a Black assistant professor that the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee denied him tenure because of his race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The university moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to file his EEOC discrimination charge within the required 300 days after the alleged unlawful practice. After reviewing the multi-step tenure review process and the final decision by the chancellor on September 27, 1976, the court denied the motion, holding that the charge was timely filed from that date under the applicable limitations period.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the EEOC's lawsuit against Liberty Trucking Company to enforce a conciliation agreement resolving Title VII claims of religious discrimination against employee Delbert Carnahan, including allegations that the company breached the agreement by discharging him, failing to provide backpay and benefits, and refusing other required accommodations. The district court dismissed the action on its own motion. It held that federal subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because the claims amounted to enforcement of a private contract rather than a direct violation of federal statutes, even though the agreement was reached under EEOC auspices and incorporated Title VII standards. The court reasoned that conciliation agreements do not implicate the same federal interests or jurisdictional bases as statutory enforcement actions under Title VII provisions like 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5.

labor & employmentcivil rightsreligious liberty

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court judgment concerning a debtor who, shortly before filing for bankruptcy under the pre-1978 Bankruptcy Act, forgave part of a mortgage note owed by her sons in exchange for reconveyance of 15 acres including her homestead, with the explicit intent of shielding assets from creditors after a large personal injury verdict. The bankruptcy court found the transaction fraudulent and exercised its discretion under §67(d) to rescind the transfer rather than preserve it for the estate. The district court affirmed, ruling that the factual findings of fraudulent intent were not clearly erroneous and that the bankruptcy judge did not abuse its discretion in selecting the remedy, while also addressing the interaction with Wisconsin homestead exemption law under §815.18(30).

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a dispute between the State of Wisconsin and officers of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band over regulatory authority for hunting and fishing by non-members on navigable waters inside the reservation's outer boundaries. The court reviewed extensive historical evidence on the 1854 treaty, subsequent land selections in 1859, 1865, and 1869, and the final 1873 selection list approved by the Secretary of the Interior, which used the rectangular U.S. Public Land Survey system to define the reservation and included interior navigable lakes and waterways. It concluded that the reservation boundaries encompassed those waters but that the parties' intent and the legal framework did not transfer to the tribe sovereignty or jurisdiction to regulate non-members' use of them. The court therefore held that Wisconsin possesses exclusive jurisdiction to regulate such activities by non-members and enjoined the defendants from enforcing the band's fishing, hunting, and ricing code against them.

federal powercriminal law

This case is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff Mason alleged that three members of a Wisconsin Parole Board hearing panel terminated his parole hearing because he refused to waive his objection to certain information in his file. A jury found in plaintiff's favor on this claim and awarded one dollar in nominal damages, after which defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that they enjoyed absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages liability. The court reviewed the procedural history, including earlier denials of motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on immunity grounds, the trial evidence, and Supreme Court precedents such as Butz v. Economou and Imbler v. Pachtman concerning the scope of absolute immunity for officials performing adjudicative functions. It analyzed whether parole board members are entitled to absolute immunity when conducting release hearings or whether only qualified immunity applies, noting that the factual record on the nature of the proceedings had been limited at earlier stages.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involves a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a five-month search of business records belonging to defendants Joseph Hrdlicka and related entities, based on consent given to a USDA investigator. The magistrate recommended granting suppression after finding that the investigator obtained consent through active and passive misrepresentations about the purpose and targets of the investigation. The district judge conducted a de novo review of the credibility-based factual findings, including by examining the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, and determined that the undisputed facts and witness testimony supported the conclusion that the consent was not voluntary. The court therefore adopted the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendation to suppress the evidence as obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, while scheduling a further hearing on the precise scope of the suppression order.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case was a Title VII employment discrimination suit brought by a female sociologist at UW-Stout against the Board of Regents, alleging that her nonrenewal and denial of tenure were because of her sex. The court found that the department chairman had identified a critical programmatic need to hire a sociologist-social worker, leading to the decision not to grant tenure or extend her contract beyond 1976. Plaintiff was given notice, reasons for the decision, reconsideration, and faculty committee review, but the court held she failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she would have been retained had she been male. The judge concluded the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason was not shown to be pretext for sex discrimination.

labor & employmentcivil rights