Case law

Daniel Pernice v. City of Chicago

237 F.3d 783 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 11, 2001

Clearly, Pernice dreamed up his termination-for-treatment theory only after the district court rejected his first, more plausible theory. … In addition, the ADA excludes from the definition of "qualified individual with a disability" any person currently using illegal drugs. 42 U.S.C. § 12114 (a).

United States v. Hardimon

329 F. App'x 660 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 2009

Moreover, the government clearly argued the participation of Ghost, Disco, and Black in the conspiracy throughout the course of the trial. … Hardimon maintains that the conviction doesn’t qualify as a “prior” conviction because, he contends, insufficient evidence established that he participated in the conspiracy after his conviction in January 2006.

International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge No. 1777 v. Fansteel, Inc.

900 F.2d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 16, 1990

The Supreme Court has also recognized that: “It has been established that where the contract contains an arbitration clause, there is a presumption of arbitrability in the sense that ‘[a]n order to arbitrate the particular … The Union also argues that our holding, in effect, improperly grants the replacements “super seniority” permanently immunizing them from the operation of seniority and bumping under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement

United States v. Zuno

731 F.3d 718 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 30, 2013

Anderson, 580 F.3d 639, 649 (7th Cir.2009) (“To qualify for an enhancement under section 3B1.1, a defendant ‘must have been the organizer [or] leader ... of one or more other participants’ in the charged criminal activity … And the Zuños clearly controlled their cousin Juan who delivered and picked up cocaine for them at their direction as well as Individual D.

William Sapperstein v. Robert Hager and Patricia Hager Doing Business as B & G Cyclery

188 F.3d 852 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1999

The plaintiff has the obligation to establish jurisdiction by competent proof. Commodity Trend Service, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading *856 Comm’n, 149 F.3d 679, 685 (7th Cir.1998). … The defendants object that we have not definitively ruled whether filing a claim with a state Department of Labor qualifies as protected activity under this section of the FLSA.

Conley, Joseph M. v. Village Bedford Park

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 31, 2000

Conley must establish that he is disabled as defined under the ADA and that he suffered an adverse employment action as a result of his disability. See Silk, 194 F.3d at 798 n.6. … In Erickson, the court held that the ADA did not "’enforce’ the Four- teenth Amendment," and therefore, like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, did not validly abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. 207 F.3d at 252.

Karl F. Wudtke and Hope C. Wudtke v. Frederick J. Davel

128 F.3d 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 22, 1997

These definitions may not always clearly delineate what is prohibited, cf. United States v. … immunity.

Hereditary Guardianship v. Nat. Spiritual Assembly

628 F.3d 837 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 23, 2010

Effendi died unexpectedly in 1957 without having clearly designated a successor. … In church property disputes (trade- mark suits obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate.

United States v. Elder

840 F.3d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 25, 2016

Here, the government introduced ample evidence' establishing that Elder knowingly agreed with others to unlawfully distribute methamphetamine as charged in the superseding indictment. … Elder also challenges the district court’s finding that his 1999 Arizona conviction qualified as a felony drug offense.

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary

699 F.2d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 28, 1983

Green’s track record both here and in other circuits is clearly one of blatant abuse of the courts. … The right of access to the courts has even been referred to in connection with the “Privileges and Immunities Clause” of Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution. See Chambers v.

United States v. Palumbo Bros.

145 F.3d 850 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 7, 1998

Therefore, to establish a criminal violation of RICO, the *868 government must first establish a defendant’s predicate acts. … of a RICO offense that must be clearly and specifically established in the indictment.

Thomas Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, an Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation

447 F.2d 713 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 17, 1971

The conjunction of power and motive to exclude with an exclusion not immediately and patently justified by reasonable business requirements establishes a prima facie case of the purpose to monopolize.” Id. at 488. … We express no opinion on any antitrust immunity that might result from action or inaction taken by the Commission or the Secretary of Agriculture in this case.

Squibb v. Memorial Medical Center

497 F.3d 775 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 16, 2007

Therefore, Memorial’s notice of those disabilities cannot establish that it regarded Ms. Squibb as disabled. Because we have concluded that Ms. … Squibb contends that she suffered an intermediate retaliatory act: She was offered the position of patient placement coordinator, a job she contends was clearly outside her physical restrictions. 10 Ms.

Frances Wheeler v. Snyder Buick, Inc., Frances Wheeler v. Double K, Inc.

794 F.2d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 3, 1986

The court decided Wheeler had established a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge by showing “that she belongs to a protected class, that she was qualified for the job in question, and performing as normally required … The sole testimony establishing this claim was that of Boas-so.

Murillo, Edward A. v. Frank, Matthew

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 1, 2005

Section 2254(d)(1) says that the writ shall not issue unless the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreason- able application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of … A natural reading of §2254(d)(1) is that the only federal law that matters is the law that had been “clearly established” when the state court is called on to decide. See Williams v.

United States v. Jose L. Yanez and Kenneth Torres

985 F.2d 371 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 10, 1993

Consequently, Torres believes the district court should have ordered specific performance of the plea agreement. *376 The Government stresses that its obligation to recommend a downward departure was qualified by the agreement … That being the case, the “court’s findings of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.” United States v.

Bannon v. University of Chicago

503 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 1, 2007

However, Bannon has not established that she considered her workplace to be subjectively offensive. … Argonne has submitted its policy on promotions which clearly shows that references are required for promotion to senior scientist.

Doris Deputy v. Lehman Brothers, Inc.

345 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 29, 2003

Thus, factually the district court clearly erred. … That is clearly not the case; rather, it merely means that Deputy’s claims will be resolved in a different forum.

United States v. Blair Cook

914 F.3d 545 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 28, 2019

Johnson did not alter the general rule that a defendant whose conduct is clearly prohibited by a statute cannot be the one to make a facial vagueness challenge. United States v. … (Recall that Cook had rejected the government’s offer to add language that use of marijuana on a single occa- sion was insufficient to establish unlawful drug use.)

In Re Jartran, Inc., Debtor. Fruehauf Corporation v. Jartran, Inc.

886 F.2d 859 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 28, 1989

The bankruptcy court’s denial of Fruehauf’s motion to dismiss is even more clearly not appealable as a final order. … This makes sense because the order in this case is clearly not a collateral order.