Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CA7 Stay Motion Order

CA7 Stay Motion Order

Ratings: (0)|Views: 516|Likes:
Published by LibertyAgenda
The Seventh Circuit just denied the defendants’ stay motions, which is a major win for Okeefe. It held that their sovereign immunity appeal is frivolous. Four federal judges have now declared the defendants’ most important argument to be “frivolous”—not just incorrect, but worthless.


>
The Seventh Circuit just denied the defendants’ stay motions, which is a major win for Okeefe. It held that their sovereign immunity appeal is frivolous. Four federal judges have now declared the defendants’ most important argument to be “frivolous”—not just incorrect, but worthless.


>

More info:

Published by: LibertyAgenda on Jun 09, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/09/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604Office of the ClerkPhone: (312) 435-5850www.ca7.uscourts.gov
ORDER
 June 9, 2014
Before
DIANE P. WOOD,
Chief Judge
WILLIAM J. BAUER,
Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK
 , Circuit Judge
ERIC O'KEEFE and WISCONSIN CLUB ] Appeals from the UnitedFOR GROWTH INC., ] States District Court for Plaintiffs-Appellees, ] the Eastern District of ] Wisconsin.Nos. 14-1822, 14-1888, 14-1899, ] 14-2006, 14-2012 and 14-2023 v. ] No. 2:14-cv-00139-RTR ] JOHN T. CHISHOLM, BRUCE J. ] Rudolph T. Randa, Judge.LANDGRAF, DAVID ROBLES, ] FRANCIS D. SCHMITZ and ] DEAN NICKEL, ] Defendants-Appellants. ]
The following are before the court:
1. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT DEAN NICKEL'S MOTION FOR STAY,
filedon May 14, 2014, by counsel for the appellant Dean Nickels.2.
DECLARATION OF JUSTIN H. LESSNER IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANT-APPELLANT DEAN NICKEL'S MOTION FOR STAY,
filedon May 14, 2014, by counsel for Justin H. Lessner.3.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION TO STAY THE DISTRICTCOURT'S CERTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S APPEALSAS FRIVOLOUS AND ALL OTHER DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS,
filed on May 14, 2014, by counsel for the appellant Francis D. Schmitz.
 
- over -
Case: 14-1822 Document: 43 Filed: 06/09/2014 Pages: 3
 
Nos. 14-1822, 14-1888, 14-1899, 14-2006, 14-2012 and 14-2023Page 24.
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS JOHN CHISHOLM, BRUCE LANDGRAFAND DAVID ROBLES' MOTION FOR STAY OF DISTRICT COURTPROCEEDINGS,
filed on May 15, 2014, by counsel for the appellants JohnChisholm, Bruce Landgraf and David Robles.5.
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' STAY MOTIONS ANDCROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE OF DENIAL OFDEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS,
filed on May 28, 2014, by counselfor the appellees.
 
6.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT DEAN NICKEL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR STAY AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES'CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE,
filed on June 4, 2014, by counsel for the appellant Dean Nickels.7.
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS JOHN CHISHOLM, BRUCE LANDGRAF,AND DAVID ROBLES' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTIONFOR STAY OF DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS,
filed on June 4, 2014, by counsel for the appellants John Chisholm, Bruce Landgraf and DavidRobles.8.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT FRANCIS SCHMITZ'S RESPONSE TOPLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARYAFFIRMANCE AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY,
filedon June 4, 2014, by counsel for the appellant Francis D. Schmitz.After our order of May 7, 2014, the district court concluded that the appeals are frivolous.Under
 Apostol v. Gallion
 , 870 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1989), that clears the way for furtherproceedings in the district court, subject to the partial stay that our order of May 7 imposedwhile the appeals remain under advisement.This court has set a briefing schedule, but most of the litigants have asked for other relief,including further stays, an order dismissing some or all of the appeals, or summaryaffirmance. We do not attempt to address each of these motions individually but insteadcover the ground as follows.1. Appeal Nos. 14-2006, 14-2012, and 14-2023 challenge the district court’s authority to issuea preliminary injunction, and to conduct proceedings concerning the request for permanentinjunctive relief. They are frivolous to the extent they present this topic. Defendants’invocation of immunity does not affect litigation under
 Ex parte Young
 , 209 U.S. 123 (1908),that seeks prospective relief to compel compliance with federal law (including theConstitution). The district court therefore had authority, notwithstanding the appeals, toissue an injunction. - over -
Case: 14-1822 Document: 43 Filed: 06/09/2014 Pages: 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->