Case law

United States v. William Cherry

938 F.2d 748 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 22, 1991

In essence, the government submitted that YW’s telling Levine of the incident amounted to a “fresh complaint” of forcible sexual assault and therefore had sufficient indicia of reliability to qualify for admission under this … Cherry’s trial testimony it found to be untruthful, it clearly had indicated at the close of the trial that the denial of penetration was critical.

United States v. Jeffrey Jones

55 F.3d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 24, 1995

Therefore, we will affirm the court’s decision unless it is clearly erroneous. Corral-Ibarra, 25 F.3d at 440 . … The PSR suggested, and the district court agreed, that Jones qualified for sentencing as a career offender.

United States v. Kelly Rollins and Dan Slaughter

862 F.2d 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 10, 1989

The district court clearly instructed the jury that the attorney’s opening statements were not evidence. Opper v. … As is typical in these cases, both sides point to specific passages from these numerous conversations which they argue clearly show, or clearly do not show, evidence of an intent to adopt the other party's statements.

Doctors Nursing Rehabilitation v. Kathleen Sebelius

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2010

Second, Gao did not establish a general rule that agencies may divest courts of jurisdiction by reopening final decisions. … We cannot say that “good cause” is so clearly lacking that the district court would abuse its discretion if it remanded the case to the agency.

Peabody Coal Company v. Spese

117 F.3d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 1997

See 946 F.2d at 558 ("[i]f having established that he is now totally disabled by black lung disease, the claimant also establishes that his present condition is substantially worse than it was the first time he applied, that … should be enough to establish his entitlement").

David Pannell v. Daniel R. McBride Superintendent

306 F.3d 499 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 30, 2002

Under that provision federal courts may grant habeas corpus relief only if a state court’s adjudication on the merits resulted in a decision that “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … But the right to present evidence is qualified — prison officials may exclude evidence from an inmate’s hearing to ensure institutional safety or correctional goals. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 .

United States v. Johnson

643 F.3d 545 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 28, 2011

The government bears the burden of establishing relevant conduct by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 347; United States v. Acosta, 85 F.3d 275, 279 (7th Cir. 1996). … While acknowledging that this is a close case, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in attributing 23 grams of crack to Johnson, and we reject his remaining arguments. 1.

Mike Yang v. Paul Hardin

37 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 28, 1994

This finding is clearly erroneous. … A default judgment establishes as a matter of law that the defendant is liable. Black, 22 F.3d at 1399 .

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Allen

600 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2010

Litig., 471 F.3d 24, 42 (2d Cir. 2006) (disavowing suggestion that expert’s testi- mony may establish component of class certification “simply by being not fatally flawed”). … Therefore, by failing to clearly resolve the issue of its admissibility before certifying the class, the district court erred. Cf.

Knapp v. Whitaker

757 F.2d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 5, 1985

Terry Carl Knapp, he is not qualified to teach science or health education at the high school level. … We note that for purposes of this section 1983 civil rights lawsuit, the defendants did not raise the affirmative defense of objective, good faith immunity as set forth in Harlow v.

United States v. Ruben Franco and Norberto Garcia

909 F.2d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 9, 1990

The evidence at trial established that Franco and undercover officers were involved in a series of meetings and telephone calls for the purpose of procuring cocaine. … There can, of course, be *1047 more than one person who qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy.

Educo, Inc. v. Donald C. Alexander, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Defendants

557 F.2d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 15, 1977

In both cases, the plans qualified for deductions under Section 162, but current deductibility was not mentioned. … Shapiro is clearly distinguishable.

David Zbaraz v. Arthur F. Quern

596 F.2d 196 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 13, 1979

Not only did Congress not explicitly shift the funding obligation to the states in the Hyde Amendment, but it also clearly did not intend to encourage abortions. 13 . … It is established that Congress has the power to legislate substantively in an appropriations Act. United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554 , 60 S.Ct. 1034 , 84 L.Ed. 1356 .

United States v. Andrew Joseph Schaack

466 F.2d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 10, 1972

How to achieve the appropriate balance in serving these vital national interests clearly called for legislative expertise. … We think that, for the reasons, given, it was clearly within the political function of Congress to require that a person serve eighteen months in the armed forces of a foreign ally in order to qualify for the exemption under

Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Pilgrim Holiness Church Corp

210 F.2d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 23, 1954

By engaging in the printing business, as this defendant did, we think it was clearly engaged in “commerce” within the meaning of the Act. • The defendant admits that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not expressly exempt … United States, 6 Cir., 178 F.2d 38 , 40: “The guaranty of freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights is not a guaranty of immunity for violation of law.”

Eloy Simental v. Ronald Matrisciano

363 F.3d 607 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 13, 2004

A federal court may grant a habeas petition only if the state court’s adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by … Contrary to Simental’s argument, there is no evidence that Anderson “clearly indicated” to Contreras that he would receive immunity for beating Martinez; the most that can be said is that he discussed the “possibility” with

The United States of America v. John Matthew Stonehouse

452 F.2d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 2, 1971

Moreover, the somewhat different language used in the House Report also indicates that the qualifying language was intended to modify the verb “uses” rather than the noun “facility.” 3 A reading of § 1084 in its entirety … The record plainly establishes that the gambling enterprise was a regular and significant portion of the business carried on in appellant’s tavern.

Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

865 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2017

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing each element. Id. at 561. … The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs’ inability to procure information under FECA qualified as a concrete injury. Id.

Marrocco v. General Motors Corp.

966 F.2d 220 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 12, 1992

See Zaddack, 773 F.2d at 150-51 (district court may make findings of fact in ruling on a motion to dismiss as a sanction, and its findings will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous); Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). … However, in our view the plaintiffs’ wilful and unexcused violations of the protective order here certainly qualify as “contumacious conduct.”

United States v. Wilson, Lee A.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 2, 2006

Once the felony conviction is established, federal law prohibits the posses- sion of either firearms or ammunition. … If the pardon, expungement, or restoration of rights provides that the convicted person may not possess firearms, the convic- tion remains a qualifying predicate for purposes of § 922(g)(1).