Case law

United States v. Roger S. Baskes

649 F.2d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1980

The situation is too equivocal to deem the witnesses’ answers false and the government under a duty to correct or qualify them. IV. … United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 , an undisclosed agreement of leniency between the government and the witness prior to .the testimony was clearly established.

Gerald R. HUHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KOEHRING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

718 F.2d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 29, 1983

Huhn cannot establish a prima facie case because he cannot establish that he was qualified for the job and he cannot demonstrate that he was replaced by a person outside the protected group. … Kephart clearly stands for the rule that to be “qualified” an employee must be meeting his employer’s expectations.

Harris v. Davis

874 F.2d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 1989

immunity 1 The majority's disposition of the case makes it unnecessary for it to reach the question of qualified immunity that is raised in rather perfunctory fashion in the appellees' brief. … Assuming that the issue is properly before us, I believe that the district court properly held that summary judgment was not appropriate because the claim of qualified immunity turned on a disputed issue of fact.

Gordon E. McQuillen v. Wisconsin Education Association Council, Donald E. Krahn, and Morris Andrews

830 F.2d 659 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 16, 1987

The court found that, nonetheless, Cherney was the most qualified candidate and that she received the position because she was the most qualified candidate, not because she was a woman. … Nonetheless, the district court held that the plan was not impermissible because it only required WEAC to “search” 2 for qualified women and minorities but did not require them to be hired over more qualified individuals.

Linda Florek v. Village of Mundelei

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2011

On the aspirin- based claim, the magistrate judge granted summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, reasoning that there was no clearly established right to over-the- counter drugs during an arrest. … Qualified immunity will shield an officer from money damages unless a plaintiff establishes that the officer violated a right that was clearly established. Pearson v.

Chestnut, Steven J. v. Hall, Terry

284 F.3d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 1, 2002

The district court granted the appellees’ motion, finding Tutsie’s involvement in the Meridian Street Police Brawl "clearly irrelevant to any issue in this case." We agree. … immunity; and (5) immunity from tort liability under Indiana statute for the enforcement of a law.

Younger v. Hulick

482 F. App'x 157 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 10, 2012

If so, Younger must demonstrate that the law on this point was clearly established if he is to overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity. See Harlow v.

Riccardo, Anthony v. Rausch, Larry

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2004

immunity because reasonable officers would not necessarily have understood that the law clearly required Riccardo and Garcia to be in separate cells. … Pelzer, expressly rejected the notion that in order for a right to be “clearly established” previous case law must contain facts which are “materially similar” to the facts contained in the underlying action. 536 U.S. 730

United States v. Richard F. Lefevour

798 F.2d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 1986

The relevance of the offered proof to the charges against LeFevour is so tenuous that the district judge was entitled to conclude that its probative value would be clearly outweighed by its effect in confusing the jury by … The qualifying words, “ought in fairness,” show that the duty to place “any other part” of the recorded statement or any other “recorded statement” in evidence is not absolute; obviously, the admission of one recorded statement

Alinsky, Diana L. v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 13, 2005

The FTCA provides a limited waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity. … On appeal, the plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the district court’s factual finding was clearly erroneous.

Samuel B. Cerro v. United States

872 F.2d 780 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 18, 1989

Rather, the government grants Ewers the proper presumption of innocence and argues persuasively that Corti’s testimony fails to clearly establish that Ewers was involved in criminal activity. … Just as clearly, Ewers’ failure to do so does not automatically establish that Cerro was denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Horton, 845 F.2d 1414, 1419 (7th Cir.1988).

Peretz v. Sims

662 F.3d 478 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 15, 2011

immunity. … “A court must grant a motion for summary judgment against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden

United States v. County of Cook, Illinois

167 F.3d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 30, 1999

Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 , 104 S.Ct. 568 , 78 L.Ed.2d 379 (1984), does not qualify this rule when identical parties contest the sequential suits.) … This hardly establishes a sovereign-immunity exception to claim preclusion (not only because the Court rejected an argument for an exception, but also because sovereign immunity had not been invoked in Durfee), but on the

Holocaust Victims of v. Erste Group Bank

695 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2012

Magyar Nemzeti Bank, it is well established that a denial of sovereign immunity under the FSIA is a collateral order subject to interlocutory appeal. ___ F.3d at ___. … We clearly have jurisdiction over MNB’s appeal of the denial of sovereign immunity and address the merits of that defense in a separate opinion.

Steven Hill v. William Shelander

924 F.2d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 26, 1991

The defendant is further prejudiced- in being required to rely upon different defenses, as a defendant is permitted to raise only a qualified immunity defense in an individual capacity suit whereas he may raise a sovereign … immunity defense in an official capacity suit.

United States v. Burke, Robert A.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2005

The government sought to introduce 404(b) evidence to establish that Burke offered to per- form various services, not to establish that he in fact performed those offers. … Even potential interfer- ence with a line of inquiry can establish materiality. Id.

Davis v. Weidner

596 F.2d 726 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 6, 1979

Plaintiff appealed this decision to the University Committee, a faculty committee established to advise the University Chancellor on personnel matters. … This judicial posture, although animated by a legitimate desire to avoid judicial intrusion into academic affairs, can lead to the immunization of higher education from the requirements of Title VII.

Allen S. Berman v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant

713 F.2d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 27, 1983

Congress placed on the government the burden of establishing that its position was substantially justified. … The district court held that Berman clearly was not entitled to § 218 coverage.

Marvin Hamilton v. Richard M. Daley

777 F.2d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 4, 1985

Plaintiff’s claims were clearly foreclosed by Imbler and subsequent decisions of this court. … This claim is clearly precluded by prosecutorial immuni *1213 ty. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 416 , 96 S.Ct. at 988 ; Heidelberg v.

Cynthia Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois

848 F.2d 1396 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1988

In Danenberger the court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint on the grounds of qualified immunity because no clearly established right to a promotional decision free of any political considerations existed at … . -, 107 S.Ct. 172 , 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986); it means only that there is no right, or if there is a right, it was not clearly established at the time at issue. . In Avery v.