Case law

Hair v. United States

240 F. 333 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 6, 1917

Various of the numerous assignments of error involve rulings of the court excluding from the evidence testimony of certain witnesses, and many admittedly genuine letters, all tending to establish the merit and the efficiency … In most instances the concession is qualified by the word “incipient,” and thus limited the conceded efficiency of the extinguisher to putting out incipient fires.

Eugene Cherry v. Washington County, Wisconsin

526 F. App'x 683 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 10, 2013

We reject that contention, and indeed we conclude that discussing qualified immunity is unnecessary. … The defendants needed only to determine whether they had enough information to establish probable cause, and we readily conclude that they did. The issue of qualified immunity thus falls away.

United States v. Steven J. Nigg

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2012

Did Nigg’s Prior Convictions Qualify as Three Violent Felonies? … Dickerson, 901 F.2d 579, 584 (7th Cir. 1990) (“robbery” under Illinois law qualified as a violent felony).

United States v. Bryant, Thomas

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 26, 2009

to qualify as crack for sentencing purposes. … Cases from this and other circuits establish, therefore, that the presence of sodium bicarbonate is not a litmus test for establishing that a substance is “crack” for the pur- poses of Section 2D1.1.

Citizens Marine National Bank v. United States Department Of Commerce

854 F.2d 223 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1988

The statute under which the bank sued the government lifts the bar of sovereign immunity only for the Secretary of Commerce, and not for the other federal defendants. … But the evidence overwhelmingly established that this undemanding standard was satisfied, and the district court's (unexplained) disagreement with this conclusion we deem clearly erroneous.

United States v. Melvin C. Wetterlin

583 F.2d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 27, 1978

Hemly testified for the government and received immunity. 2 . … In addition, reading the indictment clearly does nothing to establish on the record that the court personally determined that the defendant understood the nature of the charges. 7 .

Holmes, Darius v. Village Hoffman

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 26, 2007

Finally, the doctrine of qualified immunity does not support the entry of summary judgment. … At the time of Holmes’s arrest, it was of course clearly established that a police officer may not use excessive force in arresting an individual.

United States v. Ronald Mitchell

625 F.2d 158 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 7, 1980

The fact that the appellant was unsuccessful in actually cashing the warrant does not, of course, immunize him from liability under this paragraph of § 641. Pavloski, supra; United States v. … It is well established, of course, that this court will not infringe upon the trial court’s discretion in sentencing absent a clear showing of gross abuse of that discretion. United States v.

Gregory R. Czerkies v. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration and Office of Workers Compensation Programs

73 F.3d 1435 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 17, 1996

Sovereign immunity, too, limits judicial competence; what role judges are to play is entirely in the hands of Congress, see FDIC v. … claims arising under the Constitution); and § 8128(b) invokes that immunity by restricting grants of judicial power that appear elsewhere in the United States Code.

United States v. Jermaine Stamps

983 F.3d 945 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 29, 2020

The government then asked the court to clarify whether it had ruled on Stamps’s argument that he only had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm was not used in connection with his offense in order to qualify … He separately ar- gued that he had established by a preponderance of the evi- dence that the gun was not connected to his offense, and so he was eligible for safety-valve relief.

Walker Whatley v. Dushan Zatecky

833 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2016

established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).  … Because Whatley must demonstrate that the Indiana courts unreasonably  applied  clearly  established  federal  law  as determined by the Supreme Court, we turn to the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on vagueness under the 

Harlan Richards v. Sergeant J.D. White

957 F.2d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 11, 1992

The court did not reach defendants’ qualified immunity defense. We affirm the district court’s decision. 2 *474 II. … Father Prendergast — the first prison official to examine Richards' request— acceded that Richards' beliefs were sincere and based his decision on concern for disruption of established prison procedures.

S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Nutraceutical Corporation

835 F.3d 660 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2016

Johnson contends that the district court clearly erred in finding that Nutraceutical established continuity of use before 2012; the alleged lack of continuity, it says, pro- vides an alternate ground for the injunction. … Such use cannot qualify as “the kind of bona fide use intended to afford a basis for trademark protection.” Id.

Samuelson, Gregory v. LaPorte Community Sc

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 22, 2008

In situations in which the professional staff member is not engaged in the performance of professional duties s/he should state clearly that his/her expres- sion represents personal views and not necessarily … For the restriction to qualify as a prior restraint, the employee must have an interest in the speech as a citizen comment- ing upon a matter of public concern. See NTEU, 513 U.S. at 465-66; Crue, 370 F.3d at 678.

White v. Rochford

592 F.2d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 13, 1979

Our facts are clearly distinguishable from those in the cases cited in footnote 6 of Judge Sprecher’s opinion. … Clearly, the author poses the question and gives the answer in the same sentence.

Robert FLOWERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CROUCH-WALKER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

552 F.2d 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 19, 1977

Plaintiff asserts that'a prima facie case of racial discrimination was established by the following facts appearing in the record: (1) that the plaintiff was a member of a racial minority; (2) that he was qualified for the … would be constrained to hold it clearly erroneous.

United States v. Leonard Agee

83 F.3d 882 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 9, 1996

Agee qualifies for either a minimal or minor reduction.... (emphasis added). … Agee qualifies for either a minimal or minor reduction....”

Minnick v. Lafayette Loan & Trust Co.

392 F.2d 973 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 20, 1968

. § 11 , is qualified by General Order in Bankruptcy No. 47, following 11 U.S.C.A. § 53 , which provides that “ * * * the report of a referee * * * shall set forth his findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the judge … Finally, it is well established that Section 14(c) of the Bankruptcy Act, supra, must be liberally construed in favor of the bankrupts and the burden of proof is on the objecting creditor, not on the bankrupts.

United States of America, Cross-Appellee v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, Cross-Appellant

799 F.2d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 1986

Clearly, this court had established that 1115.1 contemplated some kind of priority and that the priority did not extend to forcing the executive branch to lobby Congress for appropriations. … Clearly the Department must serve as the primary, if not the only, source of federal funds.

Robert L. Tyson v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 710 Pension Fund

811 F.2d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1987

He claims to be entitled to a disability pension under the pension plan established by the collective bargaining agreement between his union (a teamsters local) and Levy. … But the section is not clearly limited to payments made under legal obligation.