Case law

Scott Troogstad v. City of Chicago

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 29, 2022

But the record developed and presented here does not demonstrate that these interests qualify as a funda- mental right under substantive due process. … The same is true for the protections afforded by natural immunity.

Green v. United States

709 F.2d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 7, 1983

Stanford’s status as an Air Force officer clearly rendered him immune from suit under the terms of the Act. Prior to obtaining the fellowship with CVSA, Dr. … Clearly, that was not the court’s intent here. Neither can the excess be characterized as punitive in the same sense that the plaintiff’s recovery in Harte v.

Thomas WHITE, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard J. ELROD and Phillip Hardiman, Defendants-Appellees

816 F.2d 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 8, 1987

They apparently believed that, despite its unwillingness to consider those claims, the Board had let in enough evidence to establish their merit. … We can do it ourselves, provided that the findings of fact which he made are not clearly erroneous and establish that there was no violation of federal law.

Richard Wagoner v. Indiana Department of Correcti

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 4, 2015

immunity protects the Commissioner from indi- No. 13-3839 5 vidual liability under the Rehabilitation Act. … To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, “the plaintiff must prove that he is a ‘qualified indi- vidual with a disability,’ that he was denied ‘the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity

Harriett L. McMillian v. Gerald N. Svetanoff, Judge

878 F.2d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 1989

That test requires us to first ask whether the plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of discrimination. … McMillian was highly qualified for the job of court reporter and had been performing that job satisfactorily at the time she was fired.

Indiana Federation of Dentists, an Unincorporated Association v. Federal Trade Commission

745 F.2d 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 12, 1984

They are available for valid review by a qualified representative(s) of your insurance company in this office. … The record clearly reveals that the IFD member dentists continued to compete in their policy of dealing with group dental health insurers; the dentists simply required that the insurers abide by established, accepted, and

Scott Hildreth v. Kim Butler

960 F.3d 420 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 19, 2020

App’x 686, 689 (7th Cir. 2010) (observing the Supreme Court “left open the question whether the ADA could validly abrogate sovereign immunity for non-constitutional violations”). … No. 18-2660 33 As a matter of elementary evidence law, this is just clearly wrong.

Abuzaffer Basith v. Cook County

241 F.3d 919 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 6, 2001

Powell established new restrictions, to be effective through August 4, 1992. … Basith argues that he presented sufficient evidence to establish that he was a qualified individual with a disability, and that Cook County violated the ADA by failing to provide him with a reasonable accommodation.

Timothy S. Heffley, as of the Estate of Opal P. Heffley, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

884 F.2d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1989

We reverse the Tax Court’s factual findings only when they are clearly erroneous. Estate of Arthur S. Kraus v. Commissioner, 875 F.2d 597, 599 (7th Cir.1989); Eli Lilly & Co. v. … We review mixed questions of fact and law, applying a legal principle to a specific factual pattern as here, under the clearly erroneous standard of review. Eli Lilly & Co., 856 F.2d at 861 ; Schuneman v.

Charles Budde v. Kane County Forest Preserve

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2010

Even assuming that he was disabled, the district court found Budde was not a “qualified indi- vidual with a disability” entitled to protection under the ADA because he violated clearly established work rules. … P. 56(c). 4 No. 09-2040 In order to prevail on his discrimination claim, Budde must first establish that he is a “qualified individual with a disability.” Basith v.

United States v. Otero

495 F.3d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

Woods’ actions clearly demonstrate that he did not accept responsibility for his offense. … Woods concedes that his April 1998 battery qualifies as a violent felony, and the district court found that his strong-armed robbery conviction also qualifies as such.

Unity Ventures v. County of Lake

841 F.2d 770 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1988

The state action exemption from antitrust liability was established by the Supreme Court in Parker v. … Under such a scheme anticompetitive effects are clearly foreseeable and contemplated.

Ross v. Indiana State Teacher's Ass'n Insurance Trust

159 F.3d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 3, 1998

Ross is a “qualified individual.” There are two prongs to the “qualified individual” definition. … The essential job duties of a UniServ Director clearly involve meetings outside of the Director’s office. Moreover, ISTA had established a school visitation program that was part of the Director’s job function.

Jones, Lois v. Brennan, Thomas

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2006

That clearly would violate the probate exception. Marshall v. Marshall, supra, 126 S. Ct. at 1748. … The claim of breach of fiduciary duty clearly is based solely on state law.

Elim Romanian Pentecostal Chur v. Jay Pritzker

962 F.3d 341 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 16, 2020

Congress established rules more favorable to religion through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb–4, but Boerne v. … This language authorizes judicial relief but does not clearly authorize suit against the state in federal court.

United States v. Maria Carmen Castillo De Gudino and Nicolas Gudino-Ortega

722 F.2d 1351 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 28, 1984

The defendants argue that these questions were important in establishing the bias or motives of Cortez and that their exclusion violated the sixth amendment. … In the present case, the contents of the lists clearly show that their author was familiar with the workings of the conspiracy.

Nanette Tucker v. City of Chicago

907 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 19, 2018

Her amended complaint makes no attempt to establish the inadequacy of that avenue of redress. … And because we agree with the district court that Tucker failed to plead any plausible due process violation, it is unnecessary to reach the district court’s decision regarding Campbell’s qualified immunity defense. 14

Bruno v. City Of Crown Point

950 F.2d 355 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 31, 1992

To establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell/ Burdine analysis, Bruno need only prove "that she applied for an available position for which she was qualified, but was rejected under circumstances that give rise to … The burden of production that shifts to the defendants when Bruno establishes her prima facie case is merely to clearly set forth, through admissible evidence, a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Bruno's rejection.

United States v. Timothy Threw

861 F.2d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1989

The district judge has broad discretion and is uniquely qualified to assess such a request in light of the circumstances of this case. … Clearly, Section 3661 must be read to be consistent with the Constitution and the decided cases.

Anthony R. Martin-Trigona v. Robert Underwood, and Supreme Court of Illinois

529 F.2d 33 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 1976

Appellant thereupon instituted the present appeal. *35 We find it unnecessary to reach the questions raised by the defenses of res judicata and judicial immunity, because we conclude that in any event the facts of record … Subsequently, a hearing was held, the result of which was that the committee was unable to certify appellant as qualified to practice law. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed.