Case law

Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation v. Jeseph Geisen, Allan Douglass, Raleigh Steuber and Lewis Waxman, Joseph Geisen Prosecutes Appeal No. 15967 Allan Douglass, Appeal No. 15964 Raleigh Steuber, Appeal No. 15965 and Lewis Waxman, Appeal No. 15966. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, and Cross-Appellant v. Joseph Geisen, Allan Douglass, Raleigh Steuber and Lewis Waxman, and Cross-Appellees

392 F.2d 900 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 7, 1968

Neither bad motive nor desire for personal gain is required to establish a knowing violation of a statute such as that here involved. Corsicana National Bank v. … Although reliance upon advice of counsel is an evidentiary factor which may be shown as tending to establish the existence of good faith (Uffelman v.

Rossetti Contracting Co. v. Brennan

508 F.2d 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 30, 1974

assisted construction contract who fails to submit with his bid the appropriate commitment required by the “Chicago Plan” for minority hiring, 1 may amend his bid submission subsequent to the opening of the bid so as to qualify … The specific com *1045 mand of the Appendix A regulation clearly states and reiterates a bid lacking the pertinent information concerning projected employers [sic] and specific goals will be deemed nonresponsive.

Radio Television News Directors Ass'n. v. United States

400 F.2d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 10, 1968

Those decisions have established the standards by which to assess claims that governmental statutes, regulations or practices abridge freedom of speech in violation of the first amendment. … (c) Where a licensee, in an editorial, (i) endorses or (ii) opposes a legally qualified candidate or candidates, the licensee shall, within 24 hours after the editorial, transmit to respectively (i) the other qualified candidate

Nicholas Hess v. Board of Trustees of Southern

839 F.3d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 13, 2016

After dismissing some of the claims as barred by sovereign immun- ity, the district court awarded summary judgment to defend- ants on the remaining claims. We affirm. I. … Hess had established neither a protected property interest nor a protected liberty interest, said the court; and even if he had proven such an interest, defendants had in any event pro- vided Hess with sufficient procedural

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 .

United States v. Joseph Kidding and Earl Brown

560 F.2d 1303 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 3, 1977

Accordingly, we do not think a defendant should be immune from any penalty attached to concealing a stolen trailer simply because he is being punished for concealing the stolen tractor to which the trailer was attached. … We, therefore, find that the interstate commerce element of the government’s case against defendant Kidding was satisfactorily established. B.

Protestant Memorial Medical Center, Incorporated v. Barry S. Maram

471 F.3d 724 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 6, 2006

To qualify for federal matching funds, a state must submit to the Secretary of Health and Human Services ("Secretary") a plan that describes the nature and scope of the state Medicaid program. See id. § 1396a(a). … The court therefore held that claims against the Director should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because of the State's sovereign immunity. 16 The court also held that CMS was immune from Memorial's suit.

Smiley v. First National Bank of Belleville (In re Smiley)

864 F.2d 562 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 9, 1989

He had every incentive to keep the creditors from filing bankruptcy until he could establish Kansas residency so that he could take advantage of the Kansas exemptions. Mr. … That finding is clearly correct. What Mr.

Subhash C. MALHOTRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COTTER & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

885 F.2d 1305 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 12, 1989

Okure, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 573 , 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989)) — which adopted state personal-injury statutes of limitations for use in section 1983 suits and clearly presaged Goodman — retroactively, because of clear precedent … In a setting of alleged discrimination, ordinarily this will be because the plaintiff had no reason to believe he was a victim of discrimination until a series of adverse actions established a visible pattern of discriminatory

Scott H. Southworth and Benjamin Thompson v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

307 F.3d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 2, 2002

Self-censorship is immune to an “as applied” challenge, for it derives from the individual’s own actions, not an abuse of government power.... … Clearly that is a con-cem that must be addressed, but the University must do so in a way that does not discriminate against viewpoints. 12 .

Pens. Plan Guide P 23918h Linda Ramsey v. Hercules Incorporated and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company

77 F.3d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 29, 1996

Firestone established the basic framework for the standard of review, but as we pointed out in Petrilli v. … its result in the facial similarity between factual determinations of a plan administrator and findings of fact made by a district court or an administrative agency, noting that the latter are normally reviewed under a clearly

United States v. Kevin Wash, A/K/A Keke

231 F.3d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 2, 2000

Wash contends that neither Consuela Jones nor Antonio Jones were qualified as experts on the issue of controlled sub *372 stances and therefore the testimony they presented was lay opinion. … This court must uphold such findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” Tringali, 71 F.3d at 1381 (citations omitted).

Gloria Sladek v. Bell System Management Pension Plan

880 F.2d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 31, 1989

If so, the plaintiffs qualified as fiduciaries and had standing to bring the action. If not, the plaintiffs lacked standing. … ERISA requires that a beneficiary be designated by a participant or by a qualified employee pension plan.

Dolores Frahm v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

137 F.3d 955 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 27, 1998

The district court found (and again the finding is not clearly erroneous) that the Equitable trained its benefits staff to give correct advice. … Plaintiffs testified to additional advice, much of it oral, that stressed the availability of “lifetime” benefits and omitted the qualifier that “this ‘rule’ is not east in stone, nor required legally”.

United States v. Kevin B. Stout

965 F.2d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 4, 1992

Clearly, based on the evidence offered at trial, Stout’s conviction on count four was not broadened to include conduct for which he was not charged. … Stout does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that establishes the mailing element.

American Needle, Incorporated v. National Football League

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2008

Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984), and its progeny, they were immune from liability under § 1. … And in its order rejecting American Needle’s second Rule 56(f) motion, the court clearly explained that further discovery was unnecessary because “the facts that materially [bore] upon the [court’s] decision[ ] [were] undisputed

Titan Tire Corp. of Freeport, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union

734 F.3d 708 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2013

However, that merely establishes their “eligibility” for such payments, not their “right ” to payment. … The facts of this case clearly differ from Toth . There is no allegation that the payments were bribes.

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.

Bodimetric Health Services, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty

903 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 25, 1990

In this section, Congress clearly expressed its intent not to alter the substantive scope of section 405(h). … But Congress, through its establishment of a limited review process, has provided the remedies it deems necessary to effectuate the Medicare claims process. Neiman, 722 F.Supp. at 953 ; see Schweiker v.

Venturelli, Celena v. ARC Comm Services

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 26, 2003

Proving that Collins had input into ARC applicants’ qualifi- cations does not establish that he had any responsibility for the actual decision to hire Venturelli. … Kinsey said that “we clearly made a decision that we were going to hire Venturelli.” Significantly, this underscores the fact that the decision was to hire Venturelli.