Wisconsin Court of Appeals Affirms Primacy of at-Will Employment Rule

By | Wisconsin Appellate Law | August 10, 2017
The traditional description of at-will employment allows employers to discharge employees for “good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.” While that’s never been entirely true (as an obvious example, you can’t fire someone because of their race), it is true that the at-will rule makes it harder for employees to assert legal claims against their employers for terminating them. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

“You Can’t Beat Something with Nothing”: 7th Cir. Explains the Importance of Disclosing Experts

Some cases present issues that are difficult for the parties to litigate or for the courts to decide. But those cases tend to be the exception. Much of litigation—at least when practiced successfully—requires the mastery of a fundamental set of skills or tasks, the blocking and tackling of the craft. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

BNSF Railway: SCOTUS Narrows General Jurisdiction for Corporate Defendants and Limits the Reach of Wisconsin’s Long-Arm Statute

Last week, in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. ___, No. 16-405, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court and concluded that BNSF Railway was not subject to general jurisdiction in Montana to answer for alleged work-related injuries occurring in North Dakota and South Dakota. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Water Splash Reveals a Glaring Omission in Wisconsin’s Service-of-Process Rules, Which Ought to Be Fixed

court_sky 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
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Midland Funding Highlights Peculiar Feature of Wisconsin’s Statute-of-Limitations Law

supreme_court 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
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Buyer Beware: Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Reaffirms the Doctrine of Caveat Emptor in Commercial Real Estate Transactions

Lawyers who practice in Wisconsin might be forgiven for wondering what limits to liability remain for torts under Wisconsin law. Some decisions of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, such as Behrendt v. Gulf Underwriters Ins., 2009 WI 71, which held that “everyone owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others,” ¶ 17, have expanded the universe of potential defendants. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Seventh Circuit Explains Disclosure of Hybrid Witnesses Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)

seventhcircuit_abs_dark The Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Indianapolis Airport Authority v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America, No. 16-2675 (7th Cir. Feb. 17, 2017), written by Judge David Hamilton, is one for civil litigators to take note of. It appears to be the first time the Seventh Circuit has used Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C). View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus