Local Government Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-city building inspector's motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendant effectuated plaintiff's arrest without probable cause on charge of disorderly conduct that arose out of plaintiff's heated dispute with defendant over defendant's failure to issue certificate of occupancy with respect to one of plaintiff's rental properties. Record failed to support plaintiff's allegation that defendant directed police officer to arrest plaintiff, and record otherwise demonstrated that defendant had no personal responsibility for plaintiff's disorderly conduct arrest where arresting officer witnessed incident and made decision to arrest plaintiff.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-city officials’ motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendants violated due process rights of plaintiffs-owners of tavern when defendants revoked plaintiffs’ liquor license after conducting hearing that resulted in finding that plaintiffs maintained “disorderly house” based on several incidents in which plaintiffs’ employees were involved in physical confrontations with customers of tavern. Ct. rejected plaintiffs’ argument that Wisc. statute providing for said revocation was unconstitutionally vague as applied to plaintiffs’ tavern where record established pattern of violence and disruptive behavior that occurred at plaintiffs’ tavern over three-year period of time.

Plaintiffs were entitled to new trial in action under Wisc. statute that required defendant-City to pay any judgment obtained against defendant-police officer for acts performed within scope of officer's employment where plaintiffs were successful in section 1983 action that defendant-police officer used excessive force in fatally shooting plaintiffs' decedent during off-duty incident in which police officer asserted that plaintiffs' decedent had tailgated officer and had tried to run him over with car. While jury eventually found that officer had not acted within scope of his employment during incident, Dist. Ct. erred in failing to give instruction informing jury that police officer, who had been charged with murder of decedent, could nevertheless be found to have acted within scope of his employment where: (1) plaintiffs' proffered instruction was accurate statement of law; (2) record showed that City required its officers to take appropriate police action for incidents occurring during their off hours; and (3) Dist. Ct.'s instruction failed to inform jury that employee can misuse or exceed his authority while still acting within his employment.