Case law

Northern Petrochemical Company v. William F. Tomlinson

484 F.2d 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 28, 1973

to establish a likelihood that it would prevail upon the merits of its case at trial. … This clearly is not necessary to make plaintiffs whole as it is conceded by them that their products may legally be copied by competitors.

Curtis Sauzek and Julian Koski v. Exxon Coal Usa, Inc.

202 F.3d 913 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 2, 2000

At this meeting, the committee established guidelines to evaluate candidates for available jobs at the newly-restructured Exxon. … Plaintiffs did not file their second EEOC charge until more than one year after Exxon refused to rehire them and therefore clearly exceeded . the ADEA’s 300 day limitation period. 3 D.

Laning v. National Ribbon & Carbon Paper Mfg. Co.

125 F.2d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 20, 1942

patent laws, of which only the federal courts have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.A. § 371 (5), from cases which do not so arise but merely involve a question of patent law, of which the state' courts have jurisdiction, is not as clearly … In answer to the contention that later cases had qualified the rule in the Wilson case, the court replied that later cases did not affect: “the principle, laid down in Wilson v.

Hope, Inc., an Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation, Plaintiffs v. The County of Dupage, Illinois

738 F.2d 797 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 26, 1984

The plaintiffs fail to recognize that the preceding footnote does not qualify the Warth Court’s basic requirement that to establish standing, potential litigants must demonstrate that “the challenged practices harm" them. … As our previous review of the facts relied upon by the district court clearly indicates, the evidence purported to establish intentional invidious discrimination is far from compelling.

United States v. Konovsky. United States v. Brani

202 F.2d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1953

. § 242 , Negro inhabitants of certain rights, privileges and immunities secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States. … The court should advise the jury clearly as to the duty of an officer in that respect as defined in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 , 65 S.Ct. 1031 , 89 L.Ed. 1495 .

Graber v. Clarke

763 F.3d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2014

As to issues of fact, this court defers to a district court’s findings and will uphold such findings unless clearly erroneous. Id. … The district court found that Graber’s suspension was not a result of his speech on June 25, 2010, and so could not qualify as an adverse employment action for retaliation purposes.

Barragan-Ojeda v. Sessions

853 F.3d 374 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 5, 2017

So I *378 don’t see that you qualify to remain in the United States under the law.[ 9 ] The IJ then continued an oral decision in which he noted that Mr. … Gonzales, 422 F.3d 529, 538-39 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that the IJ violated the alien’s right to due process in part by "questioning [that] clearly assume[d] the role of counsel for the Government”). .

Bentz v. City of Kendallville

577 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2009

The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that they were immune from liability under both federal and state law. Leonelli filed a notice of appeal. He later died on September 28, 2008. … As the Court recognized, in no setting “is the zone of privacy more clearly defined than when bounded by the unambiguous physical dimensions of an individual’s home.” Payton, 445 U.S. at 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 .

Arlene S. Kaganove v. Environmental Protection Agency

856 F.2d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 1, 1988

The administrator of the EPA noted that the EPA needed to hire and promote qualified employees who had agency-wide experience. … The Court said that the general philosophy of the FOIA was to require full agency disclosure unless information was exempted under clearly delineated statutory language.

Louvenia Hall v. Bodine Electric Company

276 F.3d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 8, 2002

Absent an entrustment of at least some of this authority, an employee does not qualify as a supervisor for purposes [of] imputing liability to the employer. Id. at 1034 . … While Title VII protects victims of sexual harassment from being terminated in retaliation for reporting harassment, an employee’s complaint of harassment does not immunize her from being subsequently disciplined or terminated

Sylvan R. Shemitz v. Deere & Company, Inc.

623 F.2d 1180 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 28, 1980

Having examined the record, addressed the briefs, and heard oral argument on behalf of the parties, we agree with the district court that the plaintiff has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as is required … Validity of patent claims is not immune from disposition on motion for summary judgment even though, in addition to prior art patents, deposition testimony and affidavits are involved, if no genuine issue of material fact

United States v. Shawn W. Troop and Kenneth A. Cooper

890 F.2d 1393 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 5, 1989

Under the Pinkerton doctrine established in Pinkerton v. … In return for immunity, Miller testified for the government. 16 . Rule 801(d)(2)(E) provides: "A statement is not hearsay if ...

United States v. Mendoza

576 F.3d 711 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 12, 2009

Therefore, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Mendoza’s recruitment of Rodriguez to store the cocaine qualified Mendoza for the § 3B 1.1(c) enhancement. … Pagan, 196 F.3d 884, 892 (7th Cir.1999), being “a mere middleman” does not make a defendant “immune from application of § 3B1.1,” Sainz-Preciado, 566 F.3d at 715 (quoting Howell, 527 F.3d at 649 ).

United States v. Thomas Osadzinski

97 F.4th 484 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2024

We nonethe- less conclude that his conduct unambiguously qualifies as concerted activity. … Such ac- tivity is both unprotected by the First Amendment and clearly violative of § 2339B.

Reg G. Garratt v. James E. Knowles, Nancy Knowles, Charles L. Knowles, Katherine Knowles Strasburg, Margaret Knowles Schink, E. Lawrence Keyes, R. Euguene Goodson, Defrees & Fisk and John W. Hupp

245 F.3d 941 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2001

Additionally, the sum payable under the SERP is calculated as the difference between the monthly amount of the Qualified Retirement Plan to which the participant would have been entitled to "under the Qualified Plan if such … First, he suggests the SERP here was clearly intended to be an excess benefit plan, as its stated purpose tracks the language of ERISA's definition of such a plan.

Owen Laboratories, Inc. v. Carl A. Schroeder, Postmaster, Chicago, Illinois

284 F.2d 445 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 28, 1960

Consequently fraud under the mail statutes is not established merely by proving that an incorrect statement was made. … Pinkus with reference to the limitation of cross-examination and its further comment emphasizing “the importance of limiting Postoffice Department orders to instances where actual fraud is clearly proved” (id., 338 U.S. at

Iain Walker v. Norene Walker

701 F.3d 1110 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2012

On Iain’s behalf, the lawyer asserted that “[t]he parties’ habitual residence is quite clearly Austra- lia,” and that Iain “would clearly be entitled to bring an Application under the Hague Convention to have the children … Apart from the letter, the district court’s remaining justifications are either clearly erroneous or irrelevant.

United States v. Michael McClellan

794 F.3d 743 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2015

In  order  to  qualify,  the  child’s  parent  or  guardian  had  to  reside  in  Illinois,  be  em‐ ployed or attend school, and have an income below a speci‐ fied amount.  …   from  the  State  of  Illinois  when  a  qualifying  child  was  provided  a  meal. 

United States v. Charles E. Porter

145 F.3d 897 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 1998

The district court found that Porter’s flight from Indianapolis qualified as a willful obstruction of justice under section 3C1.1 of the Guidelines. … Draves clearly supports the district court’s application of the obstruction enhancement here.

Lister v. Hoover

655 F.2d 123 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 31, 1981

Clearly, this was correct with respect to plaintiffs Thiel and Lister, neither of whom were ever married to female residents of Wisconsin (as defined in § 36.16). … The duration of a non-resident’s enrollment in a state university may necessarily qualify him or her for various state privileges and responsibilities allocated on the basis of residence but may leave the “intent” question