This case concerns Michael Piaskowski's federal habeas corpus petition challenging his state conviction for being a party to the first-degree murder of coworker Thomas Monfils at a Wisconsin paper mill, where Monfils was beaten, weighted, and drowned in a pulp vat. The court granted the writ, ordering Piaskowski's release, because the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the conviction under Jackson v. Virginia. No physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, or confession tied Piaskowski to the crime; the state's case rested solely on his report that Monfils was missing and his presence with the other defendants before and after the incident. The Wisconsin appellate court's decision upholding the conviction amounted to an unreasonable application of the Jackson standard, as the evidence could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Piaskowski conspired or aided and abetted the murder.
This case involved nearly 1900 current and former Milwaukee police officers who sued the City of Milwaukee under the Fair Labor Standards Act, claiming that the city improperly denied their requests to use accrued compensatory time off. The officers argued that the city rejected requests whenever granting them would require paying overtime to replacements or calling in officers from other shifts or precincts, even when no undue disruption to operations would occur. The court denied the city's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' motion, declaring that the city's practices violated 29 U.S.C. § 207(o)(5). The core reasoning was that the FLSA requires employers to permit use of comp time within a reasonable period after a request unless it would unduly disrupt agency operations, and the city's policy of denying specific requested dates (while offering alternatives within a week) did not satisfy this standard when no undue disruption was shown. The court also addressed a separate issue by granting the city's motion to join the Milwaukee Police Association as a third-party defendant regarding a 1990 settlement agreement.
Plaintiff Euleeta White sued her employer, Milwaukee Wire Products, under Title VII, alleging that her supervisor sexually harassed her on three occasions between 1997 and 1998 through unwanted physical contact. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Two of the incidents fell outside the 300-day statute of limitations for filing an EEOC charge and could not be saved by the continuing violation doctrine, as the plaintiff acknowledged the second incident was independently actionable. The remaining incident, though offensive, was an isolated event insufficient by itself to create an objectively hostile work environment under precedents requiring severe or pervasive conduct.
This case involved the estate and family of a young child who died in foster care, alleging that Milwaukee County and its social workers negligently failed to warn the foster parents about the child's medical condition that caused seizures, and that the foster parents were negligent in not seeking prompt hospital care on the day of her death. The county sought partial judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the claim seeking to hold it vicariously liable for the foster parents' negligence. The court granted the motion and dismissed that claim, ruling that the county could not be held vicariously liable because foster parents do not have a master-servant relationship with the county under Wisconsin common law. The court further held that a state statute providing conditional immunity for placement agencies does not create vicarious liability or abrogate common law agency principles, even when the statutory conditions for immunity are not met.
The case involved Cedarhurst Air Charter challenging Waukesha County's airport rules that required aircraft owners to purchase fuel exclusively from a designated fixed base operator, alleging violations of federal antitrust law under the Sherman Act through monopolization and illegal tying, as well as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, FAA regulations, and the Commerce Clause. The county moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing state action immunity for the antitrust claims and that it acted as a market participant under the Commerce Clause. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that Wisconsin's airport statutes did not clearly articulate a policy authorizing anticompetitive conduct in light of the state's own antitrust laws, which favor competition, and that the fueling restrictions differed from mere fees or surcharges such that the market participant doctrine did not apply to bar the Commerce Clause claim; the court dismissed only the AAIA/FAA-based § 1983 claim for failure to state a private right of action.
This case originated as a divorce proceeding in Wisconsin state court, which the pro se defendant attempted to remove to federal district court on grounds including federal question jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, and civil rights removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). The plaintiff moved to remand the action. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the divorce action did not arise under federal law, that diversity was lacking because the defendant resided in Wisconsin when the suit began, and that the defendant had not shown she would be denied enforcement of her federal civil rights in state court. The court awarded the plaintiff his reasonable costs but denied attorney fees in light of the defendant's pro se status.