Seventh Circuit Returns to Full Strength As Wisconsin lawyers well know, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has been working with less than its fully authorized complement of eleven active circuit judges since Judge Terence Evans took senior status in January 2010.  The court continued with 10 active members until February 2015, when Judge John Tinder of Indiana retired. View Full Post
SCOTUS Raises an Interesting Question for Consolidated Appeals in Wisconsin The U.S. Supreme Court today decided unanimously that, when cases are consolidated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), they nevertheless remain separate cases. In Hall v. Hall, No. 16-1150, two separate cases had been consolidated and were tried together to a jury, but the district court granted a new trial in one of the cases and entered a final judgment in the other. View Full Post
Seventh Circuit Explains Unique Feature of Diversity Statute A feature of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the diversity-jurisdiction statute, may make you scratch your head and wonder why it’s there. In the Seventh Circuit’s March 15, 2018 decision in Hyland v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., No. 17-2712, Judge Frank Easterbrook explained the origin of § 1332(c)(1) and the role that Wisconsin law played in its adoption. View Full Post
In Doermer v. Oxford Fin’l Group, Ltd., No. 17-1659 (7th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018), the Seventh Circuit had before it an example of what Chief Judge Diane Wood called a “depressingly common” type of litigation: “[f]amily disputes over who owns what.” In resolving the appeal, the court resolved a couple of interesting diversity jurisdictional issues that such disputes can present. View Full Post
Artis v. D.C.: SCOTUS Explains How § 1367(d) Stops the Clock The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, allows a litigant with a federal claim to bring into federal court with it any state claims that are so related to the federal claim that they “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”  Thus, a plaintiff seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. View Full Post
Water Splash Reveals a Glaring Omission in Wisconsin's Service-of-Process Rules, Which Ought To Be Fixed Today’s unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 581 U.S. ___, No. 16-254, points out a glaring omission in Wisconsin’s service-of-process rules that ought to be fixed, so that Wisconsin plaintiffs are not unnecessarily put at a disadvantage when suing overseas defendants in state court. View Full Post
Midland Funding Highlights Peculiar Feature of Wisconsin's Statute-of-Limitations Law The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. ___, No. 16-348, draws attention in passing to a peculiar feature of Wisconsin law on the effect of statutes of limitations. The 5-3 decision, in an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, holds that a debt collector that files a proof of claim in bankruptcy when collection is barred by a statute of limitations does not thereby violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s prohibitions on asserting any “false, deceptive, or misleading representation,” or using any “unfair or unconscionable means” to collect a debt. View Full Post