Case law

United States v. Cortez C. Guyton

36 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 26, 1994

He maintains that since he was not charged with a firearms offense, the admission of this *660 testimony was irrelevant in establishing his conviction for conspiracy. … To the extent, then, that the district court treated these two substances the same in calculating the amount of crack cocaine involved in the Guyton conspiracy, this was clearly inappropriate.

Advance Industries Division-Overhead Door Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

540 F.2d 878 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 1, 1976

The majority opinion of the Board refers to the effect of the early termination of the *885 shift, “which the employees reasonably assumed that action would have on their qualifying for holiday pay.” … In Cone Mills the grievance procedure to which the court referred was not one established by contract but rather one established at most by informal mutual consent of the employer and the employees.

United States v. Gray, William C.

410 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 23, 2005

Freyberger was properly qualified. Under Rule 702, an expert may testify if he has specialized knowledge and is qualified based on “knowledge, 14 Nos. 03-3238, et al. … But he found she did not qualify for a re- duction in her guideline range for coercion and duress.

United States v. Ewig Bros.

502 F.2d 715 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 28, 1974

The district court’s contrary determination was clearly erroneous. … Clearly, the government did not sustain that burden.

Parker v. Franklin County Community School Corp.

667 F.3d 910 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2012

We believe that under Will, as local governmental units, the school corporations are clearly “persons” within the ambit of § 1983. Id. at 70. … The schools can also establish a self-insurance fund for the purposes of paying judgments. See Ind. Code § 20-40-12-5.

Wallace v. Mulholland

957 F.2d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 20, 1992

The defendants are correct in saying that the judge did strike one defendant’s qualified immunity defense; allow only the plaintiffs to use evidence of Michael’s mental history; interrupt the examination of witnesses; and … and arrest without probable cause (as to James) must be supported by a finding that the officers acted with the intent to harm. 9 Nonetheless, we find that the *338 Wallaces’ testimony does support such findings, findings clearly

Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker

768 F.3d 744 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 6, 2014

Far  from   it;   that   would   clearly   violate   §2.   … Gonzalez  held  that  Arizona’s  voter  ID  statute  (which  requires   voters  to  present  one  qualifying  photo  ID  or  two  qualifying   non-­‐‑photo  IDs)  is  valid  under  §2;  the  court  cited  Gingles  but   did

Forrest, Mary v. Universal Savings

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 25, 2007

To establish an account and be eligible for an Upfront RewardTM, 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).

Steven J. Holman and Karen L. Holman v. State of Indiana and Indiana Department of Transportation

211 F.3d 399 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 1, 2000

It is not the province of federal courts to expand the language of a statute that is clearly limited. Title VII covers only sex discrimination. B. … Here, the Holmans did not attempt to plead in the alternative; they clearly pleaded in tandem.

United States v. Michael S. Gardner

516 F.2d 334 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 27, 1975

Subsequently, an immunity order was entered. After the grant of immunity was obtained, circumstances led the Government to believe that Gardner would abuse the order of immunity by lying before the grand jury. … Now, in every criminal case the government must first establish the fact that a crime has been committed.

United States v. Gilberto Gonzalez-Gomez, True Name: Gilberto Gamez-Viveros

21 F.3d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 1994

As amended, Sec. 3E1.1 provides: 4 a) If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense, decrease the offense level by 2 levels. 5 b) If the defendant qualifies for a decrease under subsection … his entitlement to the additional one-level reduction was not clearly erroneous.

Cygan, Lori v. WI Dept Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 10, 2004

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not personally participate in any constitutional deprivation. … Since the complaint has failed, we need not determine whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. III.

United States v. Ronald Grzywacz, Edward Goclan and Richard Krieshok

603 F.2d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 22, 1979

This is true particularly in light of the fact that evidence adduced independently of the statements clearly established an active conspiracy among the three appellants and Jenny Huey. … Upon being granted immunity, she still refused to take the stand and was found in contempt of court. .

Reuben Adams v. Byran Bartow

330 F.3d 957 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 3, 2003

DISCUSSION For Adams to obtain federal habeas corpus relief, he must show that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision was an “unreasonable” application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court … Moreover, even if Foucha can be read to have implied in dicta that APD standing alone is insufficient to warrant civil commitment, dicta does not qualify as “clearly established Federal law” for purposes of § 2254(d)(1).

Simpkins v. Dupage Hous. Auth.

893 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 20, 2018

He also points out that DHA often hired other individuals to do specialized work that he was not qualified to do. … Clearly, whether Simpkins had specialized skills, as well as the extent to which he employed them in performing his work, are issues that remain in dispute.

Jason White v. United States

8 F.4th 547 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 9, 2021

Given Johnson, the govern- ment continued, White may have established cause. … So he has not established cause for his procedural default.

United States v. Charles D. McCorkle Jr.

511 F.2d 482 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 1, 1975

Second, the doctrine of verbal completeness is not applicable here because McCorkle’s self-serving declarations do not qualify or explain his admissions. … However, while the excluded testimony might be probative of McCorkle’s general state of mind, it does not explain or qualify the mental state relevant for conviction under § 7203.

Nelms v. Modisett

153 F.3d 815 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 1, 1998

Even if Nelms had Established a Pri-ma Facie Case, Defendants Proffered a Legitimate, Non-Political Reason for his Termination Even if Nelms had established a prima facie case, summary judgment still would be warranted because … an appropriate consideration or whether defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity had their decision to terminate Nelms been politically motivated.

Andrew Toth v. Usx Corporation

883 F.2d 1297 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 1989

The first proposition is fairly clearly correct; the statute speaks of compensating employees or former employees for “service as an employee of such employer.” … This is clearly not a "plain language” reading of the statute. 8 . Although it is not directly on point, our recent opinion in Tyson v.

Arnett, Dave v. CIR

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 16, 2007

Under section 911, qualified individuals may exclude, within statutory limits,1 foreign earned income from their 1 For calendar year 2001 the exclusion was limited to $78,000. 26 U.S.C. § 911(b)(2)(D)(i). … When Congress replaced the deduction for foreign earned income established by the Foreign Earned Income Act of 1978, Pub. L.