Claude Zeth Luse

United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin district Appointed by Warren G. Harding (Republican) 24 signed orders read

How Judge Luse decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Luse tailored interim relief to the specific source of likely marketplace confusion.

“no reason is seen why a preliminary injunction should not issue limited to enjoining the use ■by defendant of bottles having the name of plaintiff’s product blown therein.”

Luse treated a material false statement as sufficient to defeat reinstatement of an insurance contract.

“the false answer constituted a misrepresentation of a material fact, which vitiated the reinstatement”

Procedural preferences

Luse separated policy-specific bankruptcy rights rather than treating multiple insurance contracts alike.

“affirmed in so far as it relates to the policy of the Prudential Insurance Company of America”

Luse expected objections to discovery responses to be raised when the responses arrived.

“the proper time to complain of such irresponsive answers, if such they were, was at the time of their coming in.”

Cautions

Luse declined pre-enforcement tax relief where Congress supplied a pay-first refund remedy.

“placing the transferee in the same category as a taxpayer in so far as he is required to first pay the tax liability and thereafter seek recovery back.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

United States v. Burnside
· 1921-06-11
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“Application is denied.”

In re Jaeger
· 1921-09-27
Bankruptcy appeal (petitioner) Granted

“I am compelled to reverse the order of the referee, and tire same is hereby reversed, in so far as the property is concerned that is in the possession of the trustee, and covered by the contract of October 16, 1919, and the matter remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.”

The Willis L. King
· 1923-01-17
Admiralty collision claim (petitioner and claimants) Granted in part

“I therefore hold that both vessels were at fault, and a decree accordingly, providing for division of damages and a reference to ascertain the same, may be entered.”

Tyler v. Dane County
· 1923-05-28
Demurrer (state treasurer) Granted

“The demurrer of the defendant Johnson, state treasurer, will be sustained”

Demurrer (remaining defendants) Denied

“that of the other defendants overruled.”

Jadwin v. Hoyt
· 1924-08-15
Appeal (plaintiff in error) Granted

“The judgment is reversed, and the action remanded for further proceedings.”

Standard Scale & Supply Co. v. Cropp Concrete MacHinery Co.
· 1925-04-15
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“The decree below is reversed, and the suit remanded”

United States v. Parker
· 1925-09-29
Government bank claim (complainant) Granted

“complainant may have a decree for the recovery in full of its claims: $410 in suit No. 68F, involving the Bayfield County Bank; and $2,135.84 in suit No. 69F, involving the Northern State Bank.”

Chrysler Sales Corp. v. Smith
· 1925-11-18
Preliminary injunction (complainant) Denied

“the application for a preliminary injunction must be denied.”

Nature's Rival Co. v. Venus Brassiere Co.
· 1926-06-07
Motion to limit claims (defendant) Denied

“the granting of the motion is now in order, and it is therefore denied.”

Jenkins v. United States
· 1926-09-16
War risk insurance claim (plaintiff) Denied

“I am unable to avoid the conclusion that the false answer constituted a misrepresentation of a material fact, which vitiated the reinstatement, and that this action must be dismissed.”

In Re Grant
· 1927-08-08
Bankruptcy appeal (petitioner) Granted in part

“the order of the referee, filed June 30, 1927, be and the same is hereby affirmed in so far as it relates to the policy of the Prudential Insurance Company of America, dated November 6, 1913, and said order is hereby reversed so far as it relates to the policy issued by the New York Life Insurance Company, No. 684610, for $977.”

United States v. Raiche
· 1928-06-15
Government possession claim (plaintiffs) Granted

“the judgment may go for the plaintiffs for the possession of the lands as against both of the defendants.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No assigned docket records were returned for Luse’s tenure, so no caseload mix or case-duration summary is available.

Put Judge Luse's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Luse actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Luse's own signed orders and cites them.