United States Of America District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.
Whenever plaintiff filed its grievance, it sought an initial injunction to prevent defendant from enforcing the allegedly unconstitutional ordinance. Defendant reacted to your movement and presented a movement for summary judgment at the time that is same asserting that the appropriate maxims determining the motions had been the exact same. Defendant asked that its motion for summary judgment be addressed without enabling time that is plaintiff development, arguing that any development could be unneeded. we agreed that development wouldn’t normally help plaintiff (because legislative choices are “not at the mercy of courtroom factfinding and may also be according to rational conjecture unsupported by proof or empirical information, and provided its counsel a chance to advise the court whether he desired the opportunity for extra briefing; he published into the court on August 12, 2004, to state that extra briefing wouldn’t be necessary and therefore the court should proceed to determine the motion.