Case law

Ameritech Benefit Plan Committee v. Communication Workers of America, Annette Foster-Hall, and Bernadette Bernabei v. Ameritech Corporation

220 F.3d 814 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 13, 2000

(We note, however, that the Commission is not immune from a transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a), and so this right is not unqualified.) … If the plan itself provides for discriminatory practices, such that they do not qualify for benefits under its terms, they cannot prevail on an ERISA claim.

Metlyn Realty Corporation and Kapflor Corporation v. Esmark, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Morgan Guaranty Trust Company v. Esmark, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

763 F.2d 826 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 16, 1985

The principles of claim and issue preclusion cut off one kind of attack; the rule that witnesses are absolutely immune from civil liability for their testimony, Briscoe v. … "It has long been known that there is no proposition so outrageous that some well-qualified economist will not support it.

Scruggs v. GARST SEED COMPANY

587 F.3d 832 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 20, 2009

As the district court recognized, however, Scruggs clearly knew about Fogleman, as he was one of the persons who interviewed her for the Research Assistant position. … A plaintiff proceeding under the indirect method establishes a prima facie ease by establishing the same first two elements, as well as that: (3) she was meeting her employer’s legitimate expectations; and (4) she was treated

Discovery House, Inc. v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Marion County, Indiana

319 F.3d 277 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 30, 2003

Even more clearly, the Court stated in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. … This was not established.

United States v. Andry

666 F. App'x 550 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 23, 2016

The evidence also established that there were more than five participants in the entire scheme. … Similarly, the district court’s finding that the scheme involved five or more individuals and that Andry supervised at least one individual was not clearly erroneous. For these and the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.

Cousins v. Wigoda

463 F.2d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 29, 1972

The district court order clearly cannot be supported by a finding of bad faith or harassment. … Plaintiffs clearly failed to establish the kind of irreparable harm which may, in exceptional cases justify a federal district court’s entry of an order restraining the orderly prosecution of state litigation already on file

McDowell v. McCormick

121 F. 61 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 7, 1902

the restraining order was continued in force — the defendant appearing to object to such order — and at the same time, in the same order, the court appointed one Nichols receiver of the corporation, the receiver promptly qualifying … The question of jurisdiction was clearly open to inquiry in the litigation of title thereunder (Cooper v. Newell, 173 U. S. 555, 567 , 19 Sup. Ct. 506, 43 L.

Consolidated Ry. Electric Lighting & Equipment Co. v. Adams & Westlake Co.

161 F. 343 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 1908

Another car, then in the shops, was equipped with like device, and completed February 8, 1902; and drawings then made of the device are in evidence and clearly established. … Justice Bradley states the rule in like case, in qualified form, as requiring “the plaintiffs, in rebuttal, to show, if not with equal certainty, yet to the satisfaction of the court, that the invention” claimed in the patent

19 Fair empl.prac.cas. 177, 19 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8987 Anna Marie Taylor, Cross-Appellant v. Philips Industries, Inc., Cross-Appellee

593 F.2d 783 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 26, 1979

There was no evidence that Tomlin was any more qualified or had any more seniority than Taylor. There was evidence that several male employees, including Tomlin, had taken extended medical leaves without being replaced. … This statement should be expanded so that the parties are clearly advised of their respective rights and liabilities.

Lewis, Donna L. v. Chicago Police Dept

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

Qualifying officers would need to be on either furlough or regular days off to qualify. No. 06-2302 3 ! … Lewis qualified for the IMF Detail and wanted to attend.

Joseph A. Mescall v. Clark Burrus

603 F.2d 1266 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 27, 1979

City of Chicago, 549 F.2d 415 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 875 , 98 S.Ct. 225 , 54 L.Ed.2d 155 (1977), as requiring a finding of intentional discrimination to be necessary to establish violation of §§ 1981 and 1983. … regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

National People's Action v. Village of Wilmette and Fred W. Stoecker

914 F.2d 1008 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 3, 1990

The standards that apply to a grant of a preliminary injunction are well established. … Clearly, a factual or legal error may alone be sufficient to establish that the court “abused its discretion” in making its final determination. Lawson Prods., Inc. v.

United States v. Jamal A. Sheikh and Raed Alsheikh

367 F.3d 683 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 6, 2004

On these facts, we cannot say that it was clearly erroneous for the district court to deem Jamal a supervisor. 2. … Jamal argues that because the government did not establish that at least five participants were involved, the scheme cannot qualify as “otherwise extensive.”

Trustees of the Aftra Health Fund v. Biondi

303 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 6, 2002

The Plan is established and maintained accord- ing to the Agreement and Declaration of Trust of the AFTRA Health and Retirement Funds (“Trust Agreement”). … ERISA established a comprehensive federal statutory program intended to control abuses associated with pension benefit plans . . . .

United States v. Ivan W. Brown and Gordon M. Kenngott

739 F.2d 1136 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 29, 1984

Moreover, the failure to object to evidence that though prejudicial, is probably admissible, clearly qualifies as falling within the realm of tactics. … Evidence which establishes only that a person made a mistake in judgment or an error in management, or was careless, does not establish fraudulent intent.

Local Division 519, Amalgamated Transit Union, Afl-Cio v. Lacrosse Municipal Transit Utility and City of Lacrosse, Wisconsin

585 F.2d 1340 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 19, 1978

Clearly, then, the terms written into a 13(c) agreement are grounded in federal law. … We take a similar view of the duty to establish adjustment boards under § 204. Id. at 690, 83 S.Ct. at 961 .

Andrew Walker v. W.D. Taylor

972 F.2d 352 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 13, 1992

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary tasks unless their conduct "violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the allegedly clearly established right. Fernandez v. Perez, 937 F.2d 368, 370 (7th Cir.1991).

United States v. Newbern, Jamell C.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2007

This offense, he argues, does not require a “serious” risk of physical injury “to another” and there- fore does not qualify as a crime of violence. … An act performed recklessly is performed wantonly, within the meaning of a statute using the latter term, unless the statute clearly requires another meaning. 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/4-6 (1992).

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Autozone, Inc.

630 F.3d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 30, 2010

The court concluded that the EEOC was there- fore unable to establish a failure-to-accommodate claim during the relevant time, and granted AutoZone’s motion on that claim. … Relying on our discus- sion in Brunker, AutoZone asserts that because a broken leg, appendicitis, or isolated bouts of depression did not qualify as disabilities, Shepherd’s episodic flare-ups should not qualify either.

United States of America and L. J. Marberry, Revenue Agent v. Robert J. Awerkamp

497 F.2d 832 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 3, 1974

. ****** Should you still wish to discuss any of my alleged records please send me a written promise of immunity from prosecution, penalty or punishment of any kind or form. … The witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself — his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination.