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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.