Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Habush v Cannon June 21 2010 Ruling

Habush v Cannon June 21 2010 Ruling

Ratings: (0)|Views: 50 |Likes:
Published by Eric Goldman

More info:

Published by: Eric Goldman on Jun 09, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

06/09/2011

pdf

text

original

 
STATE
OF
WISCONSIN
CIRCUIT
COURTMILWAUKEE
COUNTYWilliam
M.
Cannon,
PatrickO.
Dunphy,
Cannon
&
Dunphy
S.c.,
RobertL.
Habush,
Daniel
A.Rottier,
Habush
Habush
&
Rottier
S.C.,
_~_
------
FILeD
l-~<1-:J
---~~T
()\"-\>l
UF\\-(t:.z\.,-
C\,
;l~~?~~~~:~~~Uft
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Case
No.
09-CV-018149
onorable
Charles
F.
Kahn,Jr.
Defendants.
ORDER
The
abovemotion
to
dismiss
having
come
before
the
Court
for
initial
hearingon
March
10,and
forhearing
on
reconsideration
on
May
25,
2010,
and
the
motion
for
jury
trial
having
come
before
the
Courtfor
hearingon
May
25,
2010,
and
the
Court
having
reviewed
the
briefs
and
other
materials
andarguments
from
counsel
for
the
parties;
NOW,
THEREFORE,
IT
IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
With
regard
to
Defendants'
motion
todismiss,
it
is
granted
in
part
as
to
Plaintiff
Habush,
Habush
&
Rottier
S.C.,
for
the
reasonsstated
at
the
March
10,
2010
hearing,and
the
claim
of
Habush,
Habush
&
Rottier
S.c.
as
currently
pled
is
hereby
dismissedonthe
merits.
.
2.
With
regard
to
Defendants'motion
to
dismiss,
it
is
denied
in
part
as
to
theclaims
of
the
individual
Plaintiffs
Robert
L.
Habush
and
Daniel
Rottier,
for
the
reasonsstated
on
the
record
atthe
March
10,
2010
hearing,
and
likewise
denied
on
the
Defendants'
motion
for
reconsideration
for
thereasonsstated
on
the
record
at
the
May
25,
2010
hearing.
Among
other
determinations
made
by
the
Court
at
the
hearingson
the
motion
to
dismissand
the
motion
forreconsideration,
as
reflected
in
the
transcripts
of
those
hearings,
the
Court
has
determined
that
to
provetheir
claims
the
Plaintiffs
must
show
that the
invasion
of
privacy
under
subsection
2(b)
of
Wis.
Stat.
sec.
995.50
isan
unreasonable
invasion
of
privacy.
3.
With
regard
to
Defendants'
request
for
a
jury
trial,
there
is
no
right
to
a
jury
trialin
thiscase.
4.
Thismatter
will
be
set
for
a
trial
to
the
Courtand
inthe
exercise
of
the
court's
discretion
the
matter
also
will
be
tried
with
anadvisory
jury.
5.
June
15,2010.
mend
their
complaint
without
further
order
of
the
Court
until
MILW_1
0092672.
1
'U
~
ì,ofO

You're Reading a Free Preview

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