This case involves plaintiffs, including Monona Shores, Inc. and related entities controlled by Russel Lesperance, who entered contracts in 1965 with defendants including United States Steel Corporation and its affiliates for financing the development of an apartment complex in Madison, Wisconsin. Plaintiffs alleged that the financing was conditioned on purchasing prefabricated steel dwellings from United States Steel, creating an illegal tying arrangement in violation of federal antitrust laws under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, and defendants raised counterclaims along with defenses including the statute of limitations. The court granted dismissal of the antitrust claims, holding that the statute of limitations had expired because plaintiffs' cause of action accrued by September 9, 1967, at which point they possessed sufficient evidence of alleged damages to present a triable issue to a jury. The decision rested on the determination that any antitrust injury from the financing arrangements and subsequent loss of the property was or should have been discoverable well before the filing of the suit, barring prosecution of the claims.
The case involved a probationary public school teacher in Minnesota whose contract was not renewed after the school board provided written notice and specific reasons for the decision, which she claimed were false, fabricated, and stigmatizing. She brought a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the denial of a hearing violated her due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court analyzed the claim under the framework of Board of Regents v. Roth and Perry v. Sindermann, identifying four situations from those precedents where a nontenured teacher might be entitled to a hearing, and considering a potential fifth exception for maliciously fabricated adverse reports. Under the relevant state statute, the court observed that probationary employment could be terminated without cause or hearing at the board's discretion unless one of the enumerated due process triggers applied.
This case was a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by David Lykken, his family, and guests against Minneapolis police officers, claiming illegal arrest, unlawful search and seizure, and other constitutional violations arising from a May 1970 raid on an open-house fundraiser at the Lykken home for the group People Against Missiles. Guests made donations for beer supplied by Lykken, prompting charges of operating a disorderly house and selling liquor without a license under city ordinances; all charges were later dismissed. The court found defendants Tidgwell, Haertel, and Searles liable because they planned and directed the raid with knowledge of the event's actual noncommercial and peaceful character yet proceeded anyway, while dismissing claims against other officers who lacked such knowledge or involvement. The core reasoning focused on the officers' disregard for the plaintiffs' rights under the circumstances actually known to them at the time.
The case involved Droney Beverage Co., a long-time distributor of Miller Brewing Company products, alleging that Miller breached their agreement by abruptly terminating the distributorship via telegram with no advance notice. Droney sought a preliminary injunction to maintain the business relationship and allow time to sell the distributorship as a going concern. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. It reasoned that the remedy at law in the form of damages was adequate, as the defendant was financially responsible and any losses from insufficient notice could be measured and compensated in a damages action; specific performance of an ongoing distributorship contract was not feasible, and there was no showing of irreparable harm or probable success on the merits sufficient to warrant equitable relief.
This case involved a dispute between a wholesale oil distributor (plaintiff) and a refinery (defendant) over whether their supply agreement for gasoline formed a valid contract under UCC Section 2-207 after the plaintiff added language specifying gross-gallon measurement, and what the measurement term required. The court decided that the parties had entered into a binding contract requiring delivery measured in gross gallons and issued a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant to perform, subject to the force majeure clause. The core reasoning was that the inserted terms were additional and clarifying rather than contradictory to the offer, so UCC 2-207 permitted contract formation; the parties' prior dealings, negotiations, and partial performance confirmed their intent for gross-gallon measurement; and the defendant's later supply shortage did not excuse performance under the contract terms.
This case was a class action brought by inmates at Minnesota's state prison and reformatory challenging the institutions' disciplinary procedures. The parties reached a stipulation agreeing to revised procedures, leading the court to enter an order requiring implementation of new rules by specific deadlines. These procedures mandate written notice to accused inmates detailing charges and rights, a hearing before an impartial disciplinary board excluding involved staff or witnesses, opportunities to present evidence and witnesses, and limits on segregation or transfers without due process. Damage claims against the named officials were dismissed with prejudice, and the order explicitly does not find prior procedures unconstitutional. The court based its decree on the parties' agreement and its jurisdiction over the matter.