Legal Opinion

Tate v. Troutman

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

Decided January 27, 2010No. Case 06-C-670PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION AND ORDER

RUDOLPH T. RANDA, District Judge.

Background

This Decision and Order addresses the damages sought by the default judgment motion of pro se Plaintiff, Charlie Tate, Jr. (“Tate”). On August 27, 2009, the Court conducted a damages hearing on Tate’s default judgment motion against the Defendants, Dr. Troutman (“Troutman”), John P. Riegert, RN (“Riegert”), and Sergeant Hale (“Hale”) (collectively the “Defendants”). Tate presented evidence to establish the damages that he sustained as a result of the Eighth Amendment violations of Troutman, Riegert, and Hale in their individual…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Carey v. PiphusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Grieveson v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
  4. Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
  5. Memphis Community School District v. StachuraSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. (PC) Coston v. NangalamaDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2025
  2. Armour v. LaweranceDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2022
  3. Armour v. LaweranceDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2021
  4. Armour v. LaweranceDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2020
  5. Clark v. WintersDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API