Case law

Comdisco, Inc. v. United States

756 F.2d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 6, 1985

that qualify for the credit. … The district court’s finding to the contrary was clearly erroneous.

Gonzales v. Mize

565 F.3d 373 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 11, 2009

Therefore, this court rejects Gonzales’ arguments that the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. III. … Moreover, while it is true that the circuit court did not cite Cuyler , a state court's decision is not contrary to clearly established federal law merely because the court does not cite federal law. See Bell v.

Barbara Tully v. Paul Okeson

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2023

Specifically, “[i]t hits onerous procedural requirements which effectively handicap exercise of the franchise by those claiming the constitutional immunity.” … Any material requirement imposed upon the federal voter solely because of his refusal to waive the consti- tutional immunity subverts the effectiveness of the Twenty- fourth Amendment and must fall under its ban.” Id.

Sanchez v. Edgar

710 F.2d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 11, 1983

Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 508 , 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2911 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) as empowering him to cut corners in protection of persons *1297 with qualified immunity against frivolous litigation. … One still may hope some better way to establish the facts will be found than the fishing expedition the appellants desire. The state admits that a memo exists.

MCI Telecommunicatio v. IL Commerce Commissi

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 24, 2000

Section 252 sets out the process by which incumbent LECs and prospective carriers establish interconnection agreements. … We therefore conclude that the 1996 Telecommunications Act satisfies the requirement that Congress clearly state that participation by the state in the regulatory scheme entails a waiver of immunity from suit in federal court

Spiegel v. Continental Illinois National Bank

790 F.2d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 13, 1986

A brief such as Spiegel’s that fails to clearly and cogently present arguments for overturning the district court decision is of little or no help to this court and causes us to doubt whether the appellant prosecuted the … Further, Ill.Rev.Stat.Ch. 17, ¶ 1653(1) provides: “A person establishing a trust may specify in the trust instrument the rights, powers, duties, limitations and immunities applicable to the trustee, beneficiary and others

Larry Harris, Jr. v. Jeffrey Manlove

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2020

The defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, arguing that no clearly established law would have put them on notice that it would be unconstitutional to test Harris’s blood for hepatitis B and C, … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, we look to (1) whether the defendants violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Pearson v.

Official Committee of Unsecure v. Rudolph Randa

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 9, 2015

But, the Archdiocese argues, the Committee gets a “lim- ited grant of immunity” and only governmental actors get immunity. … The Code’s importance in our na- tion’s history is well-established.

Shirley Hoffman v. Caterpillar, Inc.

256 F.3d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 3, 2001

As a threshold requirement, Hoffman must first establish that she has a disability as defined by the ADA. … Once a plaintiff has established that she is a qualified individual with a disability, she may show discrimination in either of two ways: by presenting evidence of disparate treatment or by showing a failure to accommodate

Eric Washington v. Indiana High School Athletic Association, Incorporated

181 F.3d 840 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 23, 1999

This passage makes clear that our colleagues in the Sixth Circuit did not believe that a plaintiff had to establish discriminatory intent to establish a violation of Title II of the ADA. … This is the test established by the Supreme Court in Arline.

United States v. Terry Wayne Turner

864 F.2d 1394 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 5, 1989

immunity. … Under the test of Townsend-Tucker, as interpreted by this court in Lane, Kerley and other cases, this defendant has established that the sentence imposed upon him is violative of due process.

Benbow v. Commissioner

774 F.2d 740 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 30, 1985

In 1959 Electric Cord established a pension plan and related trust. … We think this division into qualified and unqualified components and treatment of the former as a distribution of a trust which “is” exempt clearly exceeds the bounds of statutory interpretation.

EEOC v. Bd Regents Univ WI

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 30, 2002

It is, however, a well-established principle that the fact that the states retain sovereign immunity from private lawsuits does not mean that they are protected from suit by the federal government. … As to damages, the UW contends that the damage awards are clearly excessive, particularly because the charging parties failed to mitigate their damages.

Ernest L. Levine v. United States of America

48 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1995

Sec. 50-206.53. 24 The regulations further establish six criteria which must be met in order for a particular contractor to qualify as a "regular dealer" under the Act. 25 (1) The bidder must have an establishment or leased … In this case, GSA, SBA, and DOL clearly set forth the grounds on which they acted.

Mark Mittelstadt v. Sonny Perdue

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 15, 2019

Mittelstadt’s APA claim challenging the Secretary’s decision denying reenrollment seeks “relief other than money damages,” and is “therefore within the waiver of sovereign immunity in section 702.” … As part of the Food Security Act of 1985,21 Congress established the CRP.

Mark Mittelstadt v. Sonny Perdue

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 15, 2019

Mittelstadt’s APA claim challenging the Secretary’s decision denying reenrollment seeks “relief other than money damages,” and is “therefore within the waiver of sovereign immunity in section 702.” … As part of the Food Security Act of 1985,21 Congress established the CRP.

Soderbeck v. Burnett County

752 F.2d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 4, 1985

Although the instruction conveys a mood (perhaps none too clearly to the average juror) rather than establishing precise criteria, it does imply distinct types of misconduct — though, as it seems to us, two rather than three … did, and therefore is immune from all damage liability.

Memorial Hospital of Carbondale v. Heckler

760 F.2d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 18, 1985

The offset requirement is held to apply on the theory that an account established with borrowed funds cannot qualify as funded depreciation under 42 C.F.R. § 405.419 (b)(2)(iii). … For cost reporting years beginning on or after December 1, 1982, section 226.5 provides that funds established with borrowed money will not qualify as funded depreciation, that interest on such borrowing is an allowable cost

Anthony Martin v. Mark Wentz

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2020

They had probable cause to arrest Martin, they contended, and were entitled to use reasonable force during the arrest, so their conduct did not violate any clearly established law and they were therefore entitled to qualified … The officers promptly appealed the denial of qualified immunity. A denial of qualified immunity can be appealed only “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Mitchell v.

Newell, Michael A. v. Hanks, Craig

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 court’s finding was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Charles, 238 F.3d 916, 918 (7th Cir. 2000).