Local Government Law

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.

In action seeking to enjoin defendant-fire district from implementing ordinance that required plaintiff’s customers to have direct-connect/wireless connections for fire alarm services on defendant’s control center board, Dist. Ct. erred, as matter of state law, in entering permanent injunction that precluded defendant from generating said requirements since said requirements are consistent with section 11 of Ill. Fire Protection District Act and with prevailing national standards under Nat’l. Fire Protection Association. Dist. Ct. did not err in entering permanent injunction as to portion of ordinance that required plaintiff’s customers to use defendant and its one chosen private vendor as sole suppliers of fire alarm equipment and services.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-City’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant deprived plaintiff-certified minority-owned business enterprise (MBE) of its property without due process by drastically reducing its purchases from defendant for five-month period, which caused plaintiff to incur net loss during same period. Instant five-month reduction was insufficient to constitute destruction of plaintiff’s MBE certificate since defendant still awarded plaintiff new business and continued existing contracts that totaled $939,000. Fact that plaintiff incurred temporary loss while defendant investigated possibility that plaintiff had violated MBE process by becoming broker, as opposed to wholesaler, did not require different result where plaintiff had failed to show that defendant violated any term of plaintiff’s MBE certification during its investigation of plaintiff.