Case law

Bissessur v. Indiana University Board of Trustees

581 F.3d 599 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 11, 2009

It found that the defendants had qualified immunity with respect to Bissessur’s claims for monetary damages. … contract establishes an entitlement to a tangible continuing benefit, see Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v.

Newsome, James v. McCabe, John

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2001

Defendants’ petition for rehearing contends that it was not clearly established, when they acted, that the state’s constitutional duty to avoid concealing materially exculpatory evidence ever imposed any obligations on police … Such proof would demonstrate that defendants violated clearly established rights--for the due process clause imposes obligations on all state actors, and not just on prosecutors.

Gaylon L. Harrell v. United States

13 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 30, 1993

All the quiet-title act does is waive sovereign immunity. … Suits are frequently dismissed as frivolous because of concessions made or facts established after the complaint was filed. That is all that happened here. AFFIRMED.

In Re Noble James Barret Appeal of Louis Herbert Hollingsworth and Claude Lee Simpkins

476 F.2d 14 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 3, 1973

On this appeal Hollingsworth and Simpkins argue that any withholding of their money amounts to a forfeiture which the language of the grant of immunity to them clearly forbids. … The record clearly indicates that appellants did not have possession of the money at the time the FBI agents raided the gambling establishment. 1 Nor had steps been take to identify the money as *16 belonging to the appellants

Rahn v. Board of Trustees of Northern Illinois University

803 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 23, 2015

The failure to clearly identify documents in the record, and to provide supporting citations for material propositions of fact, is a recurrent problem in this case. … At a minimum, in seeking copyright protection, the plaintiffs must clearly identify the work at issue. The plaintiffs have failed to do so here.

Michael A. Newell v. Craig Hanks

335 F.3d 629 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2003

established federal law,” does not apply to this case. … Since the evidence in the record is ambiguous on this issue, we cannot say that the district *633 court’s finding was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Charles, 238 F.3d 916, 918 (7th Cir.2001).

United States v. Frank John Schweihs, United States of America v. Anthony F. Daddino

971 F.2d 1302 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 9, 1992

Attorney to request immunity for Toushin, but the U.S. Attorney refused. The AUSA intended to call Toushin as a witness to establish the interstate commerce connection for COUNTS 14 and 15. The U.S. … In the light most favorable to the government, the evidence clearly supports Schweihs’ guilt.

John Doe and Other Members of the Football Team at Illinois State University v. Gte Corporation and Genuity Inc.

347 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2003

The college officials prevailed on grounds of qualified immunity. The only remaining defendants are the informational intermediaries- — -large corporations, two-thirds of them solvent. … Although a statute’s structure may show that secondary liability has been established implicitly, see Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, 291 F.3d-1000 (7th Cir.2002), it is hard to read § 2511 in that way.

Fe A. Velasco, M.D. v. Illinois Department of Human Services

246 F.3d 1010 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 12, 2001

Her race discrimination count is clearly not timely. See generally Brown v. Hartshorne Pub. Sch. … To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, Velasco must prove that (1) she engaged in statutorily protected expression; (2) she suffered an adverse action by her employer; and (3) there is a causal link

United States v. Burnell G. Watson

623 F.2d 1198 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 11, 1980

restatement of instruction No. 6 on the same subject which was given by the court. 15 The trial court *1205 was under no obligation to adopt the language requested in the proposed instruction since the charge given to the jury clearly … The trial judge agreed with the government that the requested instruction on immunity was argumentative.

United States v. Toby L. Welch

945 F.2d 1378 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 15, 1991

The court ruling that Nonn was not qualified to testify as an expert witness *1383 regarding possible editing of the tape was also proper. … A verdict of ‘not guilty’ does not mean that the defendant didn’t do it; it means that the prosecution failed to establish culpability beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.

United States v. Mario Zuniga

767 F.3d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 11, 2014

The district found that Zuniga had three qualifying predicates under the ACCA and gave him an enhanced sentence. … These vague and sometimes contradictory recollections of IDOC employees about events that occurred over twenty years ago is not sufficient to show that the district court clearly erred.

Morfin, Manuel R. v. City of East Chicago

349 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2003

Additionally, the district court found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because “based upon the factual record these ECPD officers did not violate any clearly established rule prohibiting such conduct … If there was “ ‘arguable probable cause’ to arrest Morfin,” continue the defendants, “then they are entitled to qualified immunity.” Appellees’ Br. at 23.

Forrest v. Universal Savings Bank, F.A.

507 F.3d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 25, 2007

To establish an account and be eligible for an Upfront Reward%, you must transfer qualifying balances of at least $5,000. … Universal’s materials state: “To establish an account and be eligible for an Upfront Reward, you must transfer qualifying balances of at least $5,000.” (emphasis added).

In Re Francis J. Demonte, a Witness Before the Special September 1981 Grand Jury. Francis J. Demonte, Witness-Appellant v. United States

667 F.2d 590 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 10, 1981

This argument seriously misconstrues the immunity statute and must also fail. The appellant was granted immunity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 , 6003. … Such a minimal response is clearly appropriate when the movant’s claim lacks any evidentiary basis. Id. at 414 n.9.

United States v. Milton Ruthstein

414 F.2d 1079 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1969

The very language of § 1084(c) compels this conclusion : “Nothing contained in this section shall create immunity from criminal prosecution under any laws of any State * * *." … (c) Nothing contained in this section shall create immunity from criminal prosecution under any laws of any State.” 10 . Defendant’s reliance on Pennsylvania v.

Payne v. Churchich

161 F.3d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 12, 1999

Illinois Tort Immunity Act. … Indeed, the allegations set forth acts and conduct that, if established, could constitute only negligence.

Korman v. United States

486 F.2d 926 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 8, 1973

Each defendant was granted immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002 . They remained silent contending that the use immunity conferred by the statute was inadequate to supplant their Fifth Amendment privileges. … This unique argument fails to consider the entirety of the statute which clearly permits like Special Grand Juries to be convened in any district of the na *933 tion regardless of population.

Eddie R. Bradley v. Village of University Park, IL

929 F.3d 875 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2019

Id . at 627 n.4 & 633, 100 S.Ct. 1398 (holding qualified immunity does not apply to damage claims against municipal government itself). … The Supreme Court clearly established in Roth and its many successors that this maneuver won't work. A hearing is required to establish whether misconduct occurred. Just so here.

Gabriela Arteaga v. United States

711 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 1, 2013

The government says no; it has sovereign immunity from being sued, and waivers of sovereign immunity must be explicit. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980); Edwards v. U.S. … It said that “Erie was formally incorporated and in 1983, Erie was designated a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) after receiving its first federal grant from the U.S.