Case law

Marie O. v. Edgar

131 F.3d 610 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1997

Amendment or the States’ sovereign immunity.” … Bart H requires the Governor to establish a single line of responsibility in a "lead agency.” 20 U.S.C; § 1476(b)(9).

Dargis v. Sheahan

526 F.3d 981 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 16, 2008

To make out a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Dargis must establish that (1) he suffers from a disability as defined in the ADA, (2) he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job in question … The Sheriffs Office asserts that Dargis cannot establish the second element of this test, namely, that he is qualified to perform the essential functions of a correctional officer, whether reasonably accommodated or not.

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

Driftless Area Land Conservanc v. Rebecca Valcq

16 F.4th 508 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2021

The state and federal suits are clearly parallel for purpos- es of Colorado River. The environmental groups have raised materially identical due-process recusal claims in both state and federal court. … A month later the two environmental groups moved to dis- qualify Commissioners Valcq and Huebsch based on alleged conflicts of interest.

June Franklin and Karen Huff v. John Zaruba, Dupage County Sheriff, in His Official Capacity and as an Agent of Dupage County Sheriff's Department

150 F.3d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 28, 1998

The complaint alleged *684 that the Sheriff failed to train and supervise his deputies and that he faded to establish policies designed to safeguard citizens apprehended by the deputies. … This is not to say that state law can answer the question for us by, for example, simply labeling as a state official an official who clearly makes county policy.

Melissa Myers v. Sunman-Dearborn Community Schools

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 25, 2025

Myers does not always clearly distinguish between her interference and retaliation theories of liability. Her argu- ments overlap and sound in both theories. … Myers’s evidence falls far short of establishing these elements.

James McLaughlin v. Albert Tilendis

398 F.2d 287 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 12, 1968

However, other officials, such as present defendants, retain only a qualified immunity, dependent on good faith action. Pierson v. … Thus here a successful defense on the merits merges with a successful defense under the qualified immunity doctrine. 16 Finally in this connection, it should be noted that immunity was sub silentio denied to the school officials

Indiana Protection & Advocacy Services v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

573 F.3d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2009

Or it could mean that, to qualify for a grant, the state “shall” ensure that the system can do all of the listed things. That’s the norm for strings attached to federal grants. … Occasionally Congress has specified that a federal law supersedes states’ sover- eign immunity.

James M. Alex v. City of Chicago, Michael M. McKittrick v. City of Chicago

29 F.3d 1235 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 1994

Since 1985, it has been clear that state and local government employers do not enjoy constitutional immunity from the strictures of the Act, which Congress, in 1974, had extended to explicitly cover them. See Garcia v. … And more importantly (since we are interpreting regulations), it seems to clearly comport with the relevant regulatory history.

United States v. Thomas N. Moore

791 F.2d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 23, 1986

As sometimes occurs in such circumstances, Middleton and Roberts testified against defendant at trial in exchange for immunity. … Marren clearly appeared excited and her statement does not appear to be the product of conscious reflection.

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

Scheib v. Grant

22 F.3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 2, 1994

As a result, no unlawful use or disclosure violation can be established against the defendants. 6 B. … At most, they state, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Frazier

3 F. App'x 533 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 16, 2001

As the repeated emphasis on truthful testimony and continuing cooperation reflects, the government bargained for Frazier’s unreserved cooperation in establishing the case against his co-conspirators. … The obligation that Frazier undertook clearly encompassed testifying truthfully under oath regarding all matters.

Aguilar-Mejia v. Holder

616 F.3d 699 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 6, 2010

PML is most common among indi- viduals with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). … The IJ determined that Aguilar-Mejia qualified as a member of both groups, and that these groups con- stituted “social groups” for purposes of the withholding- of-removal regulations.

Kristine Bunch v. United States

880 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 30, 2018

This broad waiver of immunity, however, is subject to several qualifications, some of which appear in section 2680. … The government asserted immunity under the discretionary-func- tion exception, id. at 1024, but it failed to produce the prison regulations that would have established a grant of discretion to its employees.

Klug v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees

197 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 23, 1999

In addition, Czar-necki was said to have established a sub-account from which he awarded student scholarships, also in violation of Board rules. … In broad general terms, of course, educational improvement and fiscal responsibility in public schools clearly are matters of public concern.

Stanciel, Elijah v. Gramley, Richard B.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 20, 2001

In the motion to dismiss, defendants asserted several defenses including Eleventh Amendment immunity, qualified immunity, and state law sovereign immunity. … attorney’s performance was deficient in several respects-- counsel failed to address all of the issues in defendants’ motion to dismiss, respond to the court’s order to show cause why DOC should not be dismissed, and impeach clearly

Khaled A. Qasem v. C.E. Kozarek

716 F.2d 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 13, 1983

Qasem had the right to appeal the decision of the Staff pursuant to procedures established by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals and the Hospital’s bylaws. … While this language clearly requires that these procedural issues be considered in determining the existence of good faith, this language is ambiguous with respect to whether these are the only factors which should be considered

United States v. Thomas R. Brimberry

803 F.2d 908 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 16, 1986

The defendant has failed to establish that the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous. … In this case, as the defendant has not established that the government intentionally suppressed the evidence, and as the FBI report was ambiguous and not clearly of such high value to the defense that the prosecution could

Victoria Weiland v. Shawn Loomis

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2019

A public employee is entitled to immunity in §1983 litigation unless, at the time of the events in question, “clearly established” law would have made apparent to any public employee that his or her acts violated the Constitution … That was enough, the judge wrote, to make the right “clearly established.” The problem with this reasoning is that it starts and ends at a high level of generality.