Case law

Robert Todd v. James Schomig, Warden, Pontiac Correctional Center

283 F.3d 842 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2002

ANALYSIS A writ of habeas corpus may be granted only if the state court’s adjudication of the claim (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal … The Supreme Court has very clearly stated that aggravation evidence is of a wholly different character than mitigation evidence, and is subject to more restrictive constitutional limitations. See, e.g., McCleskey v.

Jeffery Bridges v. United States

991 F.3d 793 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2021

When Bridges was pleading guilty and being sentenced, the categorical approach was of course well-established. See generally Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). So was its applicability to the Guidelines. … Yet deferential review does not mean no review: a “court adjudicating a Strickland claim can’t just label a decision ‘strategic’ and thereby immunize it from constitutional scrutiny.” Jones v.

Stephanie L. Glass v. Village of Sauk

81 F.3d 163 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 1996

Chathas finds support in the related law governing qualified immunity for public officials, which states that an official may only claim immunity if the federal right at issue was clearly established when the alleged violations … The record clearly shows that Glass had rested her case before the motion was heard, and nothing precluded Glass from asking the court to reopen her case or to permit re-direct examination of the final witness

Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. v. Teunissen

131 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 11, 1997

The district court found qualified expert Phyllis J. Welter’s interpretation of the survey more credible and relevant. … The district court was not clearly erroneous in reaching this conclusion.

Burgess, Steven J. v. Watters, Steve

467 F.3d 676 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 2, 2006

Under AEDPA, habeas corpus relief is available only if Burgess can establish that the state court proceedings “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal … We thus cannot conclude that the court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law.

United States v. Walter Pritchard

773 F.2d 873 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 20, 1985

In addition to the order forms, the government introduced computer printout invoices to establish the misrepresentation to Edmund. … The fact that one person is not prosecuted for his possible criminal conduct does not immunize another for engaging in the same or similar conduct. We Affirm on all counts. 1 .

Brown v. Watters

599 F.3d 602 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2010

Brown had not established cause and prejudice to excuse the default. … We evaluate the record to discern only whether the state court’s adjudica- tion of the claim (1) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Harrell, Rodney v. USPS

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 19, 2005

(USA) Ltd., 540 U.S. 736, 744 (2004) (“While Congress waived the immunity of the Postal Service, Congress did not strip it of its governmental status.”). … The rights established by the FMLA can be enforced through civil actions.

Charles Distler v. United Mine Workers of America

711 F.2d 76 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 11, 1983

The courts have uniformly rejected the notion that such employee-union agreements qualify as “contracts” under 28 U.S.C. § 185 (a). Smith v. … Clearly, even had they claimed it, the “fair representation” path to jurisdiction would not have been available to plaintiffs.

Moab v. Gonzales

500 F.3d 656 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 13, 2007

Consequently, we cannot find that the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding is clearly erroneous. … The Board clearly engaged in an independent analysis of the case. The BIA did not adopt, expressly or by implication, the IJ’s findings.

Ristoff v. United States

839 F.2d 1242 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 11, 1988

Ristoff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The record clearly establishes that while Mr. … Ristoff was a handicapped individual, was otherwise qualified to hold a position as air traffic controller and that the FAA was subject to the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act.

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Adolph Bradley, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee

196 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 4, 1999

Bradley’s actions in these circumstances were clearly unreasonable and excessive. … For conduct to qualify as “aberrant behavior,” it must be “more than merely something ‘out of character’ or the defendant’s first offense.” Carey, 895 F.2d at 325 .

Railroad Transfer Service, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. The City of Chicago

358 F.2d 55 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 10, 1966

Transfer argues that the trial court erred because the ordinance in question does not qualify as a permissible local safety regulation of interstate commerce. … Chicago’s authority to assess and collect its annual vehicle license fee has been established and the amount in question here is reasonable.

United States v. Skeeter Cyphers and David Willman

553 F.2d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 21, 1977

He says that, even if the report was not technically in the hands of *1069 the prosecution and thus was immune from production under Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or Brady v. … We note that the Government established a proper chain of custody for the garments from which the hair exhibits were recovered.

Betty J. Archie, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Rena M. Delacy, Deceased v. City of Racine, Ronald W. Chiapete, and George W. Giese

826 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 1987

Pape, that “Congress, in enacting [§ 1983], meant to give a remedy to parties deprived of constitutional rights, privileges and immunities by an official’s abuse of his position.” 365 U.S. at 172 , 81 S.Ct. at 476 . … can invoke § 1983____ We believe that when private parties or public officials use criminal complaints to coerce a release of civil liability from injured persons, this action, as a malicious prosecution, is egregious and qualifies

United States v. Golden

843 F.3d 1162 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 16, 2016

And the Grade A label was appropriate, since Golden’s conduct qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. … So Golden clearly “use[d] ... physical force against the person of another,” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(l), and, in doing so, committed a Grade A violation of his supervised release. B.

Jack Brown v. Kevin Smith

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 28, 2016

Moreover,  during  2012,  Brown  made  63  trips  over  187  days  as  he  worked  to  establish  his  business.  … So  the  district  court  did  not  clearly  err  in  concluding  that  Brown  had mitigated his damages.  III.  CONCLUSION   The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Bethel Conservative Mennonite Church v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

746 F.2d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 17, 1984

In 1964, Bethel Mennonite established a medical aid plan for its members. … and operated to further a bona fide religious purpose and that the Commissioner’s determination to the contrary was clearly erroneous.

Rogers Cartage Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission

595 F.2d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 27, 1979

The record establishes, furthermore, that none of Ruan’s three competitors would be significantly affected. … It is well established that: * * * existing carriers have no absolute immunity against future competition.

York v. Peake

286 F. App'x 318 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2008

and was not better qualified than the plaintiff. … Such a comparison demonstrates pretext only if the disparity is so great that “there can be no dispute among reasonable persons of impartial judgment that the plaintiff was clearly better qualified for the position at issue