Legal Opinion

Haff v. Cooke

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

Decided April 12, 1996No. Civ. A. 94-C-0332PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION AND ORDER

REYNOLDS, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Lawyers are supposed to winnow and sift. When faced with a mass of facts, the attorney must locate the critical facts, develop the best claims or defenses, and then argue the theory to the judge or jury. Instead of the winnow and sift approach, both sides in this case have adopted the kitchen sink approach: no fact is too minute and no legal theory is too tenuous for submission to the court. At the same time, the parties have often ignored the legal background in which they argue their claims. 1

As a result of the litigation strategies,…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. DoyleSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Turner v. SafleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Sanford v. ManternachSupreme Court of Iowa · 1999
  2. Madison v. RiterDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2003
  3. Borzych v. FrankDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2004
  4. Kilaab Al Ghashiyah v. Department of Corrections of WisconsinDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2003
  5. Thomas v. LordNew York Supreme Court · 1997

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

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

Powered by the Exa API