Opinions

The Western District of Wisconsin offers a database of opinions for the years 1986 to present, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter a keyword, statute, rule or case number in the search box above.

Opinions are also available on the Government Printing Office website for Appellate, District and Bankruptcy cases. The content of this collection dates back to April 2004, though searchable electronic holdings for some courts may be incomplete for this earlier time period.

For a direct link to the Western Wisconsin Bankruptcy Court on-line opinions, visit this link.

Judge Thomas S. Utschig

In re DeVries, Case No. 89-01870-7 (07/22/1991) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 07/22/1991

Case Summary:
Anti-discrimination provision of § 525(a) can apply to the denial by the ASCS/CCC of a request to participate in the Conservation Reserve Program. CRP contracts are executory contracts for purposes of § 365.

Denial of debtors' application to participate in the CRP program was not done "solely" on the basis of their bankruptcy and was therefore not in violation of anti-discrimination provision of § 525.

Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 365 -- Executory Contracts
11 U.S.C. § 525 -- Bankruptcy Discrimination

Key Terms:
Agricultural Programs
Conservation Reserve Program
Discrimination
Executory Contracts

In re Gruetzmacher, Case No. 85-00807-11 (05/17/1991) (145 B.R. 270) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 05/17/1991

Case Summary:
Reopening of bankruptcy case does not reinstate the automatic stay of § 362. Debtor's case had been reopened solely for the limited purpose of determining whether enforcement of the stipulation between the debtor and his ex-wife was appropriate.

Statue/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 350(b) -- Reopening
11 U.S.C. § 362 -- Automatic stay

Key Terms:
Automatic Stay
Reopening

Teddy C. Ballard, Sr. and Evelyn M. Ballard v. State of Wisconsin, United States of America, Department of Treasury, and State of Illinois (In re Ballard), Adv. No. 90-0140, Case No. 90-00826-7 (05/09/1991) (131 B.R. 97) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig 05/09/1991

Case Summary:
IRS cannot assert defense of sovereign immunity in preference action by chapter 7 debtor. Wages received by creditor during preference period pursuant to prepetition garnishment constitute a "transfer by the debtor of an interest in property" for purposes of § 547. Equality of distribution among creditors is a fundamental tenet of the bankruptcy code and as such should take precedence over considerations of administrative efficiency. Continuing levy concept does not save IRS garnishments from potential application of preference provision.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 547 – Preference

Key Words:
Preferences
Sovereign Immunity