Plaintiff concedes that there surely is no significant distinction between the federal as well as the state conditions.
Plt.’s Reply Br., dkt. # 27, at 3. State ex rel. Briggs & Stratton v. Noll, 100 Wis.2d 650, 657, 302 N.W.2d 487 (1981) (“`It is well settled by Wisconsin situation legislation that the freedoms that are various by sec. 1, art. We, Wis. Const., are substantially the equivalent of the due-process and equal-protection-of-the-laws clauses for the Fourteenth amendment towards the united states of america constitution.’”) (quoting Haase v. Sawicki, 20 Wis.2d 308, 121 N.W.2d 876 (1963)).
Consequently, the conclusions we have actually reached concerning plaintiff’s federal constitutional *807 claims are similarly relevant to its state constitutional claims.
Because of its final argument, plaintiff contends that the ordinance is preempted by state legislation. Like plaintiff’s state constitutional problems, this argument will not implicate any federal problem plus it will be permissible to dismiss it on that ground, rather than work out supplemental jurisdiction over it. 28 U.S.C. В§ c that is 1367( (3). Nevertheless, i really believe it could advance efficiency that is judicial determine it together with the federal concerns. Burrell v. City of Mattoon, 378 F.3d 642 (7th Cir.2004); see additionally City of Chicago v. (more…)