Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
In an order dated Wednesday and posted on the website for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today, a Nov. 29 opinion from that court was amended following a motion filed by the defendants on Dec. 2 to delete a reference to the defendants as “silly” and “unprofessional.”
The original sentence, which appeared in parentheses in American Bank v. City of Menasha, et al., No. 10-1963, was: “In an example of silly, and indeed unprofessional, advocacy, Menasha’s brief neither cites nor mentions the public-records law, as if there were no legal basis for American Bank’s insisting on compliance with the request and as if therefore the stay granted by the district court did not preempt a state law.”
Today’s order deleted that sentence and added in its place, in parentheses: “Menasha’s brief barely mentions, and does not discuss, the public-records law and contains no citation to it, as if to insinuate that there is no legal basis for American Bank’s insisting on compliance with the request and as if therefore the stay granted by the district court did not preempt state law.”
An article about the Nov. 29 opinion was included in that day’s IL daily.
In the Nov. 29 opinion, the 7th Circuit found the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, was wrong in granting a Wisconsin city’s motion for a stay, which allowed that city to withhold public records from the bank suing it for violating securities law. The issue was whether the order issued by a state court for the city to produce the documents could be stayed by federal law because the request constituted discovery proceedings.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.