Case law

National Roofing Contractors Association v. Peter J. Brennan, Secretary of Labor

495 F.2d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 30, 1974

experience and affiliation” to represent the involved employers, roofing subcontractors, as the statute clearly required. … To the extent that such devices can be said to constitute secure temporary parapets, they may qualify as an acceptable means of protection.

United States v. Charles Tankson

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2016

Tankson next contends that, even if the drug quanti‐ ties are established sufficiently by his statement, the sales at‐ tributed to those quantities do  not qualify as “relevant con‐ duct” under the guideline.  … The  governing  principles  are  well  established. 

Murdock & Sons Construction, Inc. v. Goheen General Construction, Inc.

461 F.3d 837 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2006

The bid was originally calculated by well-qualified and experienced experts in both engineering and construction. The prison was to be a maximum security facility. … ANALYSIS “It is well established that following a bench trial, we review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo, but will reverse its findings of fact only if they are clearly erroneous.” Petrilli v.

Peabody Coal Co. v. Benefits Review Board

560 F.2d 797 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 16, 1977

Hence, to be fair, he qualified his statement. … First, the doctor’s determination was qualified rather than certain.

United States v. James E. Bragg

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 21, 2000

Further, though we believe the facts clearly establish "targeting,"/17 we wish to make clear that the government is not required to show that the defendants targeted the victims on account of their vulnerability. … For reasons unexplained, even though some of the men could neither read nor write, they too passed the course and were considered qualified to participate in the removal of asbestos from buildings and homes.

Huber Pontiac, Inc. v. Whitler

585 F.2d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 19, 1978

This statute codifies the well-established policy of non-intervention by federal courts in state taxation matters. Tully v. Griffin, 429 U.S. 68, 73 , 97 S.Ct. 219 , 50 L.Ed.2d 227 ; Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. … As this action will “suspend” the State’s ability to collect the deficiency tax from Huber until a later day, it clearly violates the Tax Injunction statute.

Hammel, Paul S. v. Eau Galle Cheese

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 11, 2005

P. 52(a) “under which ‘findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.’ ” Cerros v. … For it is well established that “[u]nder the ADA, the employer avoids all liability if the plaintiff would have been fired because in- capable of performing the essential functions of the job.”

Carroll v. Social Security Board

128 F.2d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 10, 1942

The question arose on account of the liquidator's contention that he was a state employee entitled to immunity from Federal Taxation. (Under the former rules of Immunity). … It is clear that not all state agencies and instrumentalities are exempt from federal taxation, but our question is, what position does plaintiff occupy in the State of Illinois, and clearly he is its agent or officer.

United States v. Dorwin Marine

413 F.2d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 22, 1969

But despite the adverse implications — often spectacular and occasionally inflammatory — from proof showing commission of some crime other than the one being tried, the law does not accord automatic immunity from such evidence … PROOF THAT MAILS WERE USED Defendant finally contends that the Government’s proof failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the mails were in fact used in furtherance of the scheme to defraud.

Autry v. Northwest Premium Services, Inc.

144 F.3d 1037 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 13, 1998

The Supreme Court did not simply look to the activity being regulated to determine whether it qualified as the “business of insurance.” … This understanding comports with the Fabe Court's statement that: Both Royal Drug and Pireno ■. ■ involved the scope of the antitrust immunity located in the second clause of § 2(b).

United States v. Koplin

227 F.2d 80 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 3, 1955

of the important motions was to dismiss the indictments and suppress evidence mainly on the ground that the indictments had been procured on evidence resulting from a voluntary disclosure made by Koplin on a promise of immunity … Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 69 , 53 S.Ct. 55, 64 , 77 L.Ed. 158 .

Giant Screen Sports v. Canadian Imperial

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 20, 2009

Qualified Privilege The district court also decided that there was a qualified privilege in CIBC’s communication to EDC. … Again, because parties appar- ently rarely see the need to litigate over such trivialities, it is hardly clearly established as a matter of law that the words like “default” give rise to tort liability when they are embedded

United States v. Bertha Craig

178 F.3d 891 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 20, 1999

The government presented a tape-recorded conversation establishing that the defendant learned his property was used as a wireroom, but the tape did not establish the time at which he learned of this illegal use. … These facts, clearly outlined and clearly in the trial record, provide ample support for the district court’s factual findings on this point.

United States v. Andre Bowyer

117 F.4th 950 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 17, 2024

It is in the qualified immunity context where a closely analogous case is required; neither the Supreme Court nor this court has ever equated a “clear or obvious” er- ror with the violation of “clearly established” law that … negates qualified immunity.

Olayinka Oye v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

140 F.4th 833 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 12, 2025

Under the Plan, Oye only qualified for additional disability benefits if she demon- strated that her disability arose from solely physical, rather 4 No. 24-2925 than mental … Because the record suggested that Oye’s mental health contributed significantly to her limita- tions, the district court concluded that she failed to establish entitlement to additional benefits under the Plan.

United States v. Trane E. Davis

48 F.3d 277 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 11, 1995

Clearly, the phrase “forces any persons to accompany him without ... consent” encompasses forcing someone outside a building to enter the building. … Davis' argues that this established practice violates the Constitution because it is “unfair” to defendants.

City of Chicago v. White Transp. Co.

243 F. 358 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 2, 1917

court has jurisdiction of the offending person or thing; that, though a libel in personam is not maintainable against a sovereign, it is not for lack of a cause of action in admiralty, but on account of the sovereign’s immunity … But the testimony respecting the Arizona’s condition before and after the sinking clearly establishes that the sole cause was the water from the nozzles of the fireboat, and the claim to the contrary is not now urged by appellant

Richard M. Ragsdale v. Bernard J. Turnock, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health

841 F.2d 1358 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 12, 1988

The district court’s finding that the closing of Ragsdale’s clinic would make abortions unavailable is mere speculation and clearly erroneous. … Similarly, the State of Illinois can pass legislation mandating more all-inclusive immunization requirements for school-age children than those required by the State of Missouri. Cf.

Abdul-Shaheed Muslim v. Robert A. Farley

77 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 9, 1996

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The defendants are immune from suit if either (a ) their conduct did not violate Muslim's right to due process, (b ) Muslim's right to due process was not clearly established, or (c ) the defendants reasonably should not

United States v. Charles Braverman

522 F.2d 218 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 16, 1975

Here, the false financial statement clearly had the capacity to influence the bank officials. … No doubt a prospective borrower whose credit was established at a bank could be deemed to be handling a loan at the bank, even though that loan was routine and legitimate, although in this circumstance it might seem more