Case law

Derek Hundley v. Dee Dee Brookhart

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 9, 2026

It very clearly means “try all other reason- able methods first.” Any reasonable officer would have to have known that there were at least a handful of options that could be attempted before resorting to force. … Directive 01.12.120, R. 57-1 at 731. 6 Finally, because we determine that the “use force only as a last resort” rule is not unconstitutionally vague, we need not address the question of qualified immunity and thus, we

Debruyne v. Equitable Life Assurance Society

920 F.2d 457 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 14, 1990

42 As to the first question, the answer is clearly yes. … Co., 898 F.2d 470, 473 (5th Cir.1990). 43 As to the second question, the answer is clearly no.

State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company v. Sherry Spray

547 F.2d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 1977

This Court believes the record herein clearly establishes that Phillips made various material misrepresentations to Mr. … Nonetheless the rationale of Combs, supra, as qualified by McReynolds, infra, still applies. See Ketron v. Lincoln Income Life Insurance Co., Ky., 523 S.W.2d 228, 229 (1975).

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 .

Robert L. Spillers v. Tri-State Glass Lined Storage, Inc.

325 F.2d 322 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 6, 1963

Fick, which was an exhibit in this case, clearly shows that Mr. Fick was an independent contractor and that Mr. … Newell, 1885, 104 Ind. 264 , 3 N.E. 836, 839 , as authority for the statement that: “In Indiana, since the year 1885, it has been the established rule that an examining physician, qualifying to testify as a medical expert

Blank v. Bitker

135 F.2d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 10, 1943

district courts jurisdiction of cases for winding up the affairs of any national bank, and (2) permits process to run outside the district' in which the district court is held in a suit by a national banking association established … But we do not think Bitker waived his immunity.

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.”

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.

Jeffrey C. Denny v. Donald Gudmanson

252 F.3d 896 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 18, 2001

When the case falls under § 2254(d)(l)’s “contrary to” clause, we review the state court decision de novo to determine the legal question of what is clearly established law as determined by the Supreme Court and whether the … We cannot conclude that the state court’s determination that Kent Denny’s statements were directly admissible against Jeffrey is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Michael Beckem v. Indiana Family and Social Ser

823 F.3d 902 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 10, 2016

But  not everyone qualifies for the CIH waiver, and so this possi‐ bility is an empty one for many.  …   §  1396n,  which  established  the  Home and Community‐Based Care Waiver Program. See An‐ drew I. 

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).

United States v. Mabrook, Mohammed

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2002

Cir. 1980) (had the government suggested that the witness faced conspir- acy charges, then a strong case would have been made for either granting immunity or dismissing the charges against the defendants). … We re- view the district court’s application of the enhancement de novo and review the finding that Mabrook occupied such a position under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v.

Glenview Park District v. Melhus

540 F.2d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 1976

Nonetheless, there is nothing in Gaudet’s reference to the special solicitude extended to the dependents of maritime wrongful-death victims which qualifies in any way the necessary foundation of establishing actionable negligence … It was clearly erroneous to rule that the omissions of Glenview did not proximately cause the death of George Melhus.

Bond v. Stanton

655 F.2d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 27, 1981

The question before us is whether the district judge was clearly erroneous in finding that Indiana's EPSDT program was in compliance in 1976. 13 The plaintiffs allege that the program was and is deficient in three major and … that a State must: 21 (A) Inform recipients requesting screening services of the names and locations of providers offering such services.... 22 (emphasis added) For that reason, 45 C.F.R. § 249.10 (a)(3)(i) requires the "establishment

Woods v. Schwartz

589 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 9, 2009

Our review is limited to whether that court’s denial of his claim was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). … established federal law.

Jhonathon D. White v. Stewart Smith

917 F.2d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 2, 1990

Based on this information, we find that the district court's conclusion of qualified immunity was not clearly erroneous, see Hughes v. … Sec. 1983 for malicious prosecution, the cloak of qualified immunity protects Smith from this claim as well. Cf. Schertz v.

Bennett v. Gaetz

592 F.3d 786 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2010

Fortunately, Bennett’s July 21 motion, titled “Motion to Reconsider or in the Alternative Motion for Leave to File Notice of Appeal and Request for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis,” qualified as a timely notice of appeal … We may grant habeas relief only if the Illinois courts’ adjudication of Bennett’s claim “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of

United States v. David Johnson

152 F.3d 618 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 31, 1998

It took the view that, when a device’s objective character brought it clearly within or without the ambit of subparts (1) or (2) of § 5845(f), additional evidence of intent was irrelevant to establish criminal liability. … established his liability under the statute.

Harry Halloway v. Milwaukee County, Frank Liska, Patrick T. Sheedy

180 F.3d 820 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 11, 1999

Commissioner Halloway also fails to establish an ADEA claim using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis. 6 To establish a prima facie ADEA claim under McDonnell Douglas, Commissioner Halloway must show that (1) he … Relying on the italicized language, the Court held that Congress did not clearly indicate that judges would be considered employees and therefore subject to the ADEA.

Nicosia, Michael v. Yellow Freight Syste

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 12, 2001

After reviewing the record and considering Nicosia’s poor attendance record, we are convinced that Nicosia was unable to, and failed to, satisfy his burden of establishing that he is a "qualified individual" under the ADA … The question at the deposition clearly invited Nicosia to list anyone else whom he had told about the EEOC complaint.