1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.2d
  4. 246 Wis.2d
  5. 246 Wis.2d 920 (2001)
 

JAMES SERVAIS, v. KRAFT FOODS, INC.,

No. 99-3199.

246 Wis.2d 920 (2001)

2001 WI App 165

631 N.W.2d 629

97-CV-1212 James SERVAIS, Douglas Pierce, William R. Dobson, Roger Noll, Rita Noll, Byron Krueger, Melvin Schmitz, and Roger Swanson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KRAFT FOODS, INC., National Cheese Exchange, Inc., and Alpine Lace Brands, Inc., Defendants-Respondents. 97-CV-1777 William R. DOBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KRAFT FOODS, INC., and National Cheese Exchange, Inc., Defendants-Respondents. 97-CV-1885 Roger NOLL, Rita Noll, Byron Krueger, Melvin Schmitz, and Roger W. Swanson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KRAFT FOODS, INC., National Cheese Exchange, Inc., Borden, Inc., and Alpine Lace Brands, Inc., Defendants-Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on briefs February 26, 2001.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Michael L. Stoker of Johns, Flaherty & Rice, S.C. of La Crosse. There was oral argument by Daniel Gustafson of Heins, Mills & Olson PLC of Minneapolis, Minnesota.

On behalf of the defendants-respondents, the cause was submitted on the joint brief of Thomas F. Ryan and Bruce M. Zessar of Sidley & Austin of Chicago, Illinois; Howard A. Pollack of Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. of Milwaukee; Colleen K. Nissl of counsel for Borden, Inc. of Columbus, Ohio; Tefft W. Smith, J. Robert Robertson, Jacqueline White Johnson, and Nathanael M. Cousins of Kirkland & Ellis of Chicago, Illinois; Ralph V. Topinka and Brian W. Blanchard of Quarles & Brady of Madison; Theodore L. Banks and Seth A. Eisner of counsel for Kraft Foods, Inc.; Michael Fischer and G. Michael Halfenger of Foley & Lardner of Milwaukee; and Scott W. Hansen, Dean E. Mabie and Christopher Banaszak of Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, Norris, Rieselbach of Milwaukee. There was oral argument by Tefft W. Smith.

Before Roggensack, Deininger and Lundsten, JJ.

¶ 1. ROGGENSACK, J.

The appellants' claims attack milk marketing orders that were established by a federal agency through formal rulemaking designed to implement a congressional scheme. Therefore, the orders determine lawful rates. Because the filed rate doctrine precludes suits for damages developed through attacks on such lawful rates, whether the claims for relief arise under state or federal law, we conclude that the filed rate doctrine bars the appellants...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases