District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Court Cases

Search
  1. Lessard v. Schmidt (1972)

    Alberta Lessard was picked up by two police officers in front of her residence in West Allis, Wisconsin, and taken to the Mental Health Center North Division, Milwaukee, on October 29, 1971. At the Center, the police officers, defendants James D. Mejchar and Jack Schneider, filled out a form entitled "Emergency Detention for Mental Observation," following which Miss Lessard was detained on an emergency basis. On November 1, 1971, the same police officers appeared before defendant Judge Christ [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: Civ. A. No. 71-C-602
  2. United States v. Marshall (1981)

    On May 19, 1981, following a jury trial, a verdict was returned finding the defendant David Michael Marshall guilty on Counts 1 and 3 and not guilty on Count 2 of a three-count indictment charging the defendant with violations of the National Firearms Control Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 922(h)(1). Each count on which the defendant was convicted carries a maximum penalty of a $5,000 fine and/or up to five years' imprisonment.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: 81-CR-23
  3. Tinetti v. Wittke (1979)

    Plaintiff brought this civil action on June 19, 1979, for declaratory and injunctive relief restraining defendants from strip searching persons arrested for non-misdemeanor traffic violations absent probable cause to believe the offender is concealing weapons or contraband on his body. The facts are not in dispute and have been stipulated to by the parties.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: 79-C-447
  4. United States v. Smith (2005)

    The government charged defendant John Smith with possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base. The charge arose out of an investigation into the origin of a fire at defendant's home, during which officers discovered crack and powder cocaine. Defendant pled guilty, and the probation office prepared a pre-sentence report ("PSR") which calculated defendant's offense level as 31 and his criminal history category as II, producing a guideline imprisonment range of 121-151 [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: 02-CR-163
  5. United States v. Hanson (2008)

    The government charged defendant Jon Hanson with transporting and possessing child pornography, contrary to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(1) & (a)(5)(B), and he entered a plea of guilty to the transporting charge, which carries a statutory penalty range of 5 to 20 years. However, due to the numerous enhancements he faced, the sentencing guidelines recommended that defendant spend 210-262 months in prison. Because I found this range far greater than necessary to satisfy the purposes of sentencing [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: Case No. 07-CR-330
  6. In Re Ross-Tousey (2007)

    In this bankruptcy appeal, the United States Trustee appeals a decision of the bankruptcy court denying the Trustee's motion to dismiss the case for abuse, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(1). The Trustee argues that the bankruptcy court erred in allowing the debtors, in calculating their current monthly income, to deduct an "automobile ownership expense" despite the fact that the debtors did not finance their cars and thus had no "ownership expense." The Trustee also argues that even if the [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: 07-C-65
  7. United States v. Galvez-Barrios (2005)

    In United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the federal sentencing guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment. As a remedy, the Court excised that part of the Sentencing Reform Act that made the guidelines mandatory, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b). "So modified, the ... Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 ... makes the Guidelines effectively advisory. It requires a sentencing court to consider Guidelines ranges, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(4) [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: 04-CR-14
  8. Rich Products Corp. v. Kemutec, Inc. (1999)

    Frank L. Steeves, Crivello, Carlson, Mentkowski & Steeves, Milwaukee, WI, Michael B. Powers, Preston L. Zarlock, Michael J. Berchou, Phillips, Lytle Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber, Buffalo, NY, for plaintiff.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: 95-C-968
  9. Dickenson v. Israel (1980)

    This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is in custody at the Winnebago State Camp at Winnebago, Wisconsin. While petitioner raised twelve separate issues in his original petition, he has chosen to brief and argue only two of those issues. Both involve the operation and effect of the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: Civ. A. No. 77-C-568
  10. Lessard v. Schmidt (1974)

    The opinion in this case was released October 18, 1972, and appears at 349 F. Supp. 1078. Nine months later, this court ordered "that judgment be and hereby is entered in accordance with the Opinion heretofore entered." Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. On January 14, 1974, the Supreme Court remanded the case, because the judgment did not meet the specificity requirements for injunctive orders of Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d).


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: Civ. A. No. 71-C-602
  11. BenShalom v. Secretary of Army (1980)

    The petitioner, Miriam benShalom, brings this mandamus action seeking to compel the respondents to reinstate her as a member of the United States Army Reserves. Ms. benShalom was honorably discharged from the reserves on December 1, 1976. The matter is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment and respondents' alternative motion to dismiss.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: Civ. A. No. 78-C-431
  12. In Re Fair (2011)

    The issue in this bankruptcy appeal arises from a familiar scenario after the recent collapse of the housing market: whether a chapter 13 debtor can "strip-off" a wholly unsecured secondary or junior lien on the debtor's principal residence when the debtor is ineligible for discharge because of a prior chapter 7 discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1328(f)(1) (no chapter 13 discharge if the debtor obtained a chapter 7 discharge within the past 4 years). The bankruptcy court (Hon. Pamela Pepper) [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: 10-C-1128
  13. Raytheon Co. v. McGraw-Edison Co., Inc. (1997)

    This action asserts liability under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), as well as pendent state law theories of recovery. The matter comes before the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss the entire case for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied-in-part and granted-in-part.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: 96-C-691
  14. Select Creations, Inc. v. Paliafito America, Inc. (1994)

    From February 17-24, 1994, the Court held evidentiary hearings concerning its jurisdiction over MJ Korea;[1] MHW, Inc. ("MHW"); Longreen Toys, Inc. ("Longreen"); Min Suk Han; and Yang Ok Han (collectively, the "Han respondents"), pursuant to Paliafito's: (1) Emergency Motion for Entry of Second Supplemental Writ of Attachment, Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Appointment of Receiver to Perform Additional Duties, filed February 11, 1994; and (2) motion pursuant to Rule [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: 91-C-1240, 92-C-214
  15. Budgetel Inns, Inc. v. Micros Systems, Inc. (1998)

    This case involves an important unresolved issue in Wisconsin law: whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court would apply the economic loss doctrine — which bars tort claims arising out of commercial contract disputes — to preclude a claim of fraudulent inducement to enter into a contract.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: 97-C-301
  16. Maney v. Ratcliff (1975)

    This is an action challenging the defendants' use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC)[1] to locate and detain plaintiff so that he could be extradicted to Louisiana. The complaint is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and subject matter jurisdiction is present under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Various types of injunctive relief are requested, as well as both compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff Ronald Lee Maney has filed a motion for a temporary restraining [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: Civ. A. No. 75-C-1
  17. Lessard v. Schmidt (1976)

    In Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F.Supp. 1078 (E.D.Wisc.1972), the first consideration of this case, this court held that the Wisconsin civil commitment procedures did not provide adequate due process rights to those who were committed and ordered numerous safeguards be instituted, including adequate notice, the right to counsel, availability of the privilege against self-incrimination, and a speedy hearing. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case because the judgment entered did not meet the [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: Civ. A. No. 71-C-602
  18. Sullivan v. United States (1977)

    The defendants have moved for dismissal. The motion of the American Postal Workers Union is based on an alleged failure to state a claim against it, and the United States' motion is based on the same ground plus its contention that there is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. I conclude that the defendants' motions must be granted.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: 76-C-263
  19. Amos v. Board of School Directors of City of Milwaukee (1976)

    In this school desegregation case, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against acts of the defendants allegedly violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: Civ. A. No. 65-C-173
  20. Grossman v. Sawdy (2008)

    In this bankruptcy appeal, the Chapter 13 Trustee ("the Trustee") appeals an order from the bankruptcy court overruling the Trustee's objection to Michael and Jori Sawdy's ("the Sawdys") modified Chapter 13 plan and the related order overruling the Trustee's objection and confirming the Sawdy's modified Chapter 13 plan. The Trustee objected to the Sawdy's proposed plan and argued it did not satisfy the "projected disposable income" requirement set forth in the bankruptcy code. Specifically, the [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Docket: 07-CV-312

1 of 137 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5