Case law

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....”

Estate of Andre Alexander Gree v. City of Indianapolis

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 12, 2021

It was not clearly established that their decision to fire at Green in light of that concern was unreasonable. … A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity when his or her conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. E.g., Kisela v.

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.

United States v. Timothy S. Curry, Samuel T. Harding, Don J. Leinenbach, Robert Holland and Roger S. Curry

977 F.2d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 23, 1992

Long testified at trial for the government under a grant of immunity. … Holland’s case is different than Huppert and Pierson , because he was clearly trying to protect others, and not himself — he was immunized for his testimony, and thus had no reason to protect himself.

United States v. Dismuke

593 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 27, 2010

failed to establish probable cause and that he should not have applied for the warrant.’ ” Koerth, 312 F.3d at 869 (quoting Malley v. … Young, 580 F.3d 373, 377 (6th Cir.2009) (holding that the Michigan fleeing statute’s requirement of “willful” failure to stop “clearly involved” purposeful conduct); United States v.

Owen A. Moran and Jean B. Moran v. United States

63 F.3d 663 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 24, 1995

Lower courts have since debated what rule Rosenman established or implied. … Given that the tax years in question were 1980 and 1981 and the payments were made in 1985 and 1986, 1991 was clearly too late a date to initiate a refund claim.

Thor Power Tool Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

563 F.2d 861 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 29, 1977

Thor contends that these provisions established a presumption in its favor. … The highly qualified members of the accounting profession Thor called as experts did not testify that its 1964 income had been clearly reflected in its tax return, or that the accounting method used was necessary in order

Hanners v. Trent

674 F.3d 683 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2012

Hanners asserted that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. Because the district court concluded that Mr. … Hanners did not establish a prima facie case for discrimination, and that the defendants, therefore, were entitled to summary judgment, the court did not con- sider the issue of qualified immunity. 12 Mr.

Karen Hill v. Gerald Zore

671 F. App'x 379 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 12, 2016

ORDER After unsuccessfully challenging the establishment of a guardianship over her friend Ronald Dawson in state-court probate proceedings, Karen Hill brought this federal civil-rights suit against various state … But Hill’s arguments address only qualified immunity, not the absolute and quasi-judicial immunity upon which the district court based its rulings.

Cook County, Illinois v. Chad F. Wolf

962 F.3d 208 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 10, 2020

If Congress has not spoken clearly, then we move on to step two, in which we consider whether the agency’s interpretation reflects a permissible con- struction of the statute. Id. at 843. … But when the term “public charge” was imported into fed- eral law, it was unclear how much state aid qualified someone as a “public charge.”

Harold H. Emch, Jr., and Elizabeth R. Emch, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Harold H. Emch v. The United States of America

630 F.2d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 12, 1980

. §§ 1346 (b), 2671-80, marked a major step away from the long tradition, rooted in common law, of sovereign immunity. … Considerable conflict has revolved around the concept of “discretionary functions or duties” in the context of tort claim immunity.

In the Matter of Excalibur Automobile Corporation. Excalibur Automobile Corporation, Debtor-Appellant v. Roosevelt v. Robinson

859 F.2d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 26, 1988

That is, the parol evidence adduced must establish whether a condition precedent existed. … To qualify for this exemption, all investors or their "purchaser representatives” must meet certain minimum standards. Basically, these standards measure either business sophistication or wealth and income.

Caskey, Tracy L. v. Colgate-Palmolive

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 24, 2008

According to Hill’s, Caskey also accrued a series of unexcused absences that did not qualify as FML. … She also suffered an adverse em- ployment action, though she has not clearly indicated whether the relevant “action” was the second-stage IIP No. 06-2919 13 in February

Shawnqiz Lee v. Eric Harris

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 27, 2025

So, the rec- ord undercuts the claim that Rockford police ignored “con- clusively established exculpatory evidence.” Madero, 97 F.4th at 523. … Because it existed here, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3 Because we hold that the defendants here committed no legal viola- tions, we need not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

United States v. Carletos E. Hardamon, Also Known as Cj

188 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1999

Under the clearly erroneous standard, “ ‘if two permissible views exist, the fact-finder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.’ ” United States v. … Hardamon clearly qualifies as an organizer or leader of the conspiracy.

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.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

560 F.2d 224 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 9, 1977

Teamsters establishes “the legality of the seniority system insofar as it perpetuates post-Act discrimination” because “Section 703(h) on its face immunizes all bona fide seniority systems, and does not distinguish between … Since the employer has also consented to company seniority, layoff and recall seniority will not be a question of when a transferee became qualified for a job so long as he is qualified when he applies. 14 .

Appleton Waterworks Co. v. Central Trust Co. of New York

93 F. 286 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 31, 1899

An order was entered by this court, on return of the attempted service, on July 25, 1898, appointing Herman Erb receiver; and he qualified as such, but, for reasons subsequently appearing has taken no possession of the property … W. 515 , and clearly set forth in Heidritter v. Oil-Cloth Co., 112 U. S. 294, 305 , 5 Sup. Ct. 135, and in Bank v. Stevens, 109 U. S. 432, 459 , 18 Sup. Ct. 403, and the cases reviewed.

United States v. Charles Hoffman, Jr.

415 F.2d 14 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 8, 1969

Each of these cases is clearly distinguishable from the case before us. … The cases cited by Hoffman clearly fall within this general rule. However, there are exceptions to this general rule, Lisenba v.