state law claim in Wisconsin

2023Put another way, “[a] state law claim is ‘independent’ if it ‘does not require construing the collective-bargaining agreement.’” Miller Brewing Co. v. DILHR, 210 Wis. 2d 26, 39 , 563 N.W.2d 460 (1997) (citation and emphasis omitted). ¶18 Thus, the nature of the claim is key.

2015The test is therefore whether the state law claim "requires the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement." Miller Brewing, 210 Wis. 2d at 39 . ¶ 19.

2019Thus, Parks observed that federal courts “consistently have held that when a federal claim is dismissed on a motion for summary judgment, the exercise of sound discretion requires dismissal of the state claims as well, without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to litigate them in the proper state forum.” Parks, 171 Wis. 2d at 737 ; see also Cenco Inc. v. Seidman & Seidman, 686 F.2d 449, 458 (7th Cir. 1982) (“The rule in pendent jurisdiction is that if the federal claim to which the state-law claim is pendent is dismissed before trial, the court will decline jurisdiction over the state-law cla

2014E.g., Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 675 n.15; Anderson, 327 F. Supp. 2d at 975 .

2014"Thus, if a train is involved in an accident while traveling under the maximum speed prescribed by § 213.9(a), a state law claim based on excessive speed is preempted." Anderson, 327 F. Supp. 2d at 975 . ¶31 However, as mentioned above, negligence claims based on a train's failure to slow or stop in the face of a "specific, individual hazard" fall outside preemption.

2014"Thus, if a train is involved in an accident while traveling under the maximum speed prescribed by § 213.9(a), a state law claim based on excessive speed is preempted." Anderson, 327 F. Supp. 2d at 975 . ¶ 31.

2007In State v. Milwaukee Braves, Inc., 31 Wis. 2d 699 , 144 N.W.2d 1 (1966), we carefully considered the lack of federal prosecution of interstate conduct and what impact that should have on our decision about the prosecution of an antitrust claim under Wisconsin law. ¶ 99.

2007In State v. Milwaukee Braves, Inc., 31 Wis. 2d 699 , 144 N.W.2d 1 (1966), we carefully considered the lack of federal prosecution of interstate conduct and what impact that should have on our decision about the prosecution of an antitrust claim under Wisconsin law. ¶ 99.

2006We conclude, however, that the defense to arbitration found in the California Franchise Investment Law is not a ground that exists at law or in equity `for the revocation of any contract' but merely a ground that exists for the revocation of arbitration provisions in contracts subject to the California Franchise investment Law." (emphasis in Southland )). [67] Wisconsin Auto Title Loans directs our attention to Bradley v. Harris Research, Inc., 275 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2001), involving a provision in the California Business and Professions Code prohibiting franchise agreements from restricting v

2006A state-law principle that takes its meaning precisely from the fact that a contract to arbitrate is at issue does not comport with this requirement of § 2 [of the FAA]." (emphasis in Perry )); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 , 16 n.11 (1984) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2 ) ("[A] party may assert general contract defenses such as fraud to avoid enforcement of an arbitration agreement.

2006A state-law principle that takes its meaning precisely from the fact that a contract to arbitrate is at issue does not comport with this requirement of § 2 [of the FAA]." (emphasis in Perry)); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 16 n.11 (1984) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2 ) ("[A] party may assert general contract defenses such as fraud to avoid enforcement of an arbitration agreement.

2006We conclude, however, that the defense to arbitration found in the California Franchise Investment Law is not a ground that exists at law or in equity `for the revocation of any contract' but merely a ground that exists for the revocation of arbitration provisions in contracts subject to the California Franchise investment Law." (emphasis in Southland )). [67] Wisconsin Auto Title Loans directs our attention to Bradley v. Harris Research, Inc., 275 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2001), involving a provision in the California Business and Professions Code prohibiting franchise agreements from restricting v

1997In addition, the Court has stressed that "when the meaning of contract terms is not the subject of dispute, the bare fact that a collective-bargaining agreement will be consulted in the course of state-law litigation plainly does not require the claim to be extinguished." Livadas, 512 U.S. at 124 .

1997Miller Brewing Co. v. DILHR, 203 Wis. 2d 380, 387-88 , 553 N.W.2d 837 (Ct. App. 1996) (quoting Leher, 786 F. Supp. at 1483-84 ).

1997Miller Brewing Co. v. DILHR, 203 Wis. 2d 380, 387-88 , 553 N.W.2d 837 (Ct. App. 1996) (quoting Leher, 786 F. Supp. at 1483-84 ).

1997Miller Brewing Co. v. DILHR, 203 Wis. 2d 380, 387-88 , 553 N.W.2d 837 (Ct. App. 1996) (quoting Leher, 786 F. Supp. at 1483-84 ).

1996International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, IAM Local 437 v. United States Can Co., 150 Wis. 2d 479, 487 , 441 N.W.2d 710, 713 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1019 (1990).

1995Id.

1992(Emphasis added.) Based on Gibbs and the Restatement comments and commentary, 1 federal courts consistently have held that when a federal claim is dismissed on a motion for summary judgment, the exercise of sound discretion requires dismissal of the state claims as well, without prejudice to the plaintiffs right to litigate them in the proper state forum. 2 Most particularly, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has stated that u[t]he *738 rule in pendent jurisdiction is that if the federal claim to which the state-law claim is pendent is dismissed before trial, the court will decline

1989We do hold that when resolution of a state-law claim is substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between the parties in a labor contract, that claim must either be treated as a sec. 301 claim, see Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge 735, 390 U.S. 557 (1968), or dismissed as preempted by federal labor-contract law.

1989The Court concluded by holding "that when resolution of a state-law claim is substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between the parties in a labor contract, that claim must either be treated as a § 301 claim, see Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge 735, 390 U.S. 557 (1968), or dismissed as pre-empted by federal labor-contract law." Id. at 220; see also Lingle, 108 S. Ct. at 1883 -84 n. 10; Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 394 (1987).

1989An opinion of the court of appeals for the second circuit in Baldracchi v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Div., 814 F.2d 102 (2nd Cir. 1987), was cited with approval in Lingle , at 1885.

1989An opinion of the court of appeals for the second circuit in Baldracchi v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Div., 814 F.2d 102 (2nd Cir. 1987), was cited with approval in Lingle , at 1885.

1989Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 394 ; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Hechler, 481 U.S. 851 , 859 n. 3 (1987); Evans v. Einhorn, 855 F.2d 1245, 1251 (7th Cir. 1988); Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1396 (9th Cir. 1988).