United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

January 3, 2012

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 10‐3271

DANIEL VIRNICH, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff‐Appellant, Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. v. No. 3:09‐cv‐00340 JEFFREY VORWALD, et al., Defendants‐Appellees. Barbara B. Crabb, Judge.

ORDER

The court’s opinion of December 20, 2011, is hereby amended as follows:

On page 18, footnote 4 is amended by striking the indicated language:

“4This rule is consistent with federal law and the state law of Illinois and Indiana. See Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park District, 557 F.2d 580, 595 (7th Cir. 1977) (federal and Illinois law), vacated on other grounds, 435 U.S. 992 (1978); Starzenski v. City of Elkhart, 87 F.3d 872, 878 (7th Cir. 1996) (Indiana law); see also Erebia v. Chrysler Plastic Products Corp., 891 F.2d 1212, 1215 n. 1 (6th Cir. 1989) (“the established rule in the federal courts is that a final judgment retains all of its preclusive effect pending appeal”); Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 327 (9th Cir. 1988) (same for issue preclusion).”

‐ over ‐ No. 10‐3271 2

The corrected footnote 4 shall read:

“4This rule is consistent with federal law and the state law of Indiana. See Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park District, 557 F.2d 580, 595 (7th Cir. 1977) (federal law), vacated on other grounds, 435 U.S. 992 (1978); Starzenski v. City of Elkhart, 87 F.3d 872, 878 (7th Cir. 1996) (Indiana law); see also Erebia v. Chrysler Plastic Products Corp., 891 F.2d 1212, 1215 n. 1 (6th Cir. 1989) (“the established rule in the federal courts is that a final judgment retains all of its preclusive effect pending appeal”); Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 327 (9th Cir. 1988) (same for issue preclusion).”