Case law

Dave Baum v. Franklin J. Lunding, Jr., Chairman, Illinois State Board of Elections

535 F.2d 1016 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 17, 1976

As pointed out by the court, Section 7—10 of the Election Code clearly contemplates the filing of group petitions and section 7 — 14 requires that the names of candidates appear on the ballot in the order in which petitions … Section 7-10 sets forth the statutory language that must be included on a nominating petition: We, the undersigned, members of and affiliated with the . . party and qualified primary electors of the party, in the . of . .

Penny Jo Bechtold v. Physicians Health Plan of Northern Indiana, Incorporated

19 F.3d 322 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 1994

Clearly there is no authority for such a proposition under ERISA which does not dictate what a plan such as the PHP plan before us should cover. … While such a committee would in no way be a panacea for our skyrocketing health care costs, it may help to reduce the incidence of suits in which one “expert” testifies that a procedure is experimental and another equally qualified

Gary L. Eyler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

88 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 2, 1996

And, “[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Anderson v. … Eyler contends that CTS, acting through its board of directors, qualifies as a fiduciary of the ESOP. There is evidence in the record supporting this argument.

Marcos Gray v. Kenneth R. Briley, Warden

305 F.3d 777 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 27, 2002

Because we conclude that an earlier state court application was not timely filed, under the rules recently established in Carey v. Saffold, - U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 2134 , 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002), Stewart v. … Thus, if the only reason the Illinois courts had cited for dismissing Gray’s state post-conviction application was untimeliness, those proceedings would not qualify as “properly filed” for purposes of the tolling rule of

Isiah Evans, III v. Dennis Wolfe, David Rardin, United States of America

53 F.3d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 4, 1995

There is nothing in the record to establish systematic exclusion of minorities, and appellant has offered no coherent allegations that this is the case. … immunity defense (hardly unreasonable), and engaging in discovery disputes (which were generally resolved in the government's favor).

Kennedy v. Schoenberg, Fisher & Newman, Ltd.

140 F.3d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 3, 1998

Plaintiff argues that certain comments and conduct by Goldberg qualify as evidence of intentional discrimination. … Even if plaintiff satisfied the second element of the McDonnell Douglas framework in that she was performing up to her employer’s legitimate expectations, she clearly did not present any evidence proving the fourth element

Jogi, Tejpaul v. Voges, Tim

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 27, 2005

His only task, once he established a proper jurisdictional basis for his suit, was to satisfy the notice pleading standards of Rule 8. … Second, we think it inevitable that the issue of qualified immunity on the part of the defendants will arise.

United States v. Curtis Miller

891 F.2d 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 18, 1989

The district court proceeded reasonably, and its findings are not clearly erroneous. … We reiterate the requirement, recently established in United States v.

Cullom, Richard v. Brown, Jesse

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2000

Thus, it qualifies as an "adverse action" for purposes of Title VII (and the VA concedes as much). See Williams v. Pharmacia, Inc., 137 F.3d 944, 948 (7th Cir. 1998). … The question is whether the district court clearly erred in finding that Cullom "established a causal link between his protected expression in filing EEO complaints and his failure to be promoted." Cullom, 27 F.

United States v. Dwight D. Larson, Also Known as Dennis Larson, and Paul E. Palmer

417 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 5, 2005

Moreover, Palmer cannot establish that he was prejudiced by the delay. “Prejudice is caused by delays intended to hamper defendant’s ability to present his defense.” United States v. … New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the government has the burden on appeal of establishing that the error was harmless. United States v.

Jeff Angel v. United States

983 F.2d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 11, 1992

a waiver of sovereign immunity under § 2410. … He also claimed that he qualified for an exemption from social security, but he did not file his application for exemption until after his taxes had been assessed for the previous years.

City of Milwaukee v. Saxbe

546 F.2d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 12, 1976

Warth clearly establishes that “[t]he rules of standing, whether as aspects of the Art. … Those criteria have been often stated in proceedings which sought to qualify jurisdictionally under 1361. .

Health Cost Controls v. Skinner

44 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 5, 1995

BACKGROUND Richard Skinner and his daughter, Sharon Skinner, are participants in an employee welfare benefit plan (“the Plan”) established by the Mobil Oil Corporation. H.M.O. Illinois, Inc. … HOC therefore may qualify as an ERISA fiduciary, although we leave the ultimate resolution of that issue to the district court.

Roy Paul Pomrening v. United Air Lines, Inc.

448 F.2d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 2, 1971

Both factors are clearly present. … Co., 258 F.2d 819 (5th Cir. 1958), where not all qualified apprentices were promoted.

Starcon, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

176 F.3d 948 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 4, 1999

But the court pointed out, first and correctly, that the employer's defense in such a case is a defense to liability and not just a consideration going to the scope of the remedy in a case in which liability has been established … The record is reasonably clear that some at least of the 80 union organizers who applied for jobs with Starcon were qualified for the turnaround jobs being advertised, and given that Starcon clearly needed additional workers

Moraine Products v. Ici America, Inc.

538 F.2d 134 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 18, 1976

in a patent licensing situation an absolute immunity from antitrust law. … However, the record establishes that the trial court never attempted the flexible “Rule of Reason” analysis.

United States v. Paul L. Glover

101 F.3d 1183 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1996

Cf, e.g., Walker, 652 F.2d at 710, 713 (defendant established threshold criteria for admission of proffered evidence); Sutton, 801 F.2d at 1369 (same). … With respect to the first three instances cited, the district judge found that documentary evidence and testimony clearly established that Glover had directed Wolf, Webb to purchase the Coalstar stock, and that Glover’s description

United States v. Nelson O. Mijangos

240 F.3d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 14, 2001

Coe, 220 F.3d 573, 582 (7th Cir.2000), and Mijangos has not clearly specified the jurisdictional basis for his appeal. … Miller, 962 F.2d 739, 745 (7th Cir.1992), and the Sentencing Guidelines recognize that more than one person may qualify as a leader or organizer, see U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(a), commentary at 4; see also United States v.

United States v. Commercial National Bank of Peoria, as of the Estate of Joseph G. O'Brien

874 F.2d 1165 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 4, 1989

As required by our brief analysis in O’Brien , and the requirements established by the informal refund/amendment cases cited and discussed above, the IRS clearly had notice of the pending litigation. … Here, the undisputed evidence indicates that the IRS knew full well that once the basis of the stock was established the trusts would be entitled to refunds.

United States v. Eugene Gerstein

104 F.3d 973 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 16, 1997

As discussed in the background section of this opinion in more detail, Agent Reilly’s testimony (and the written summaries of his interviews) clearly establishes that employees Slink, An-drewzuski, and Kluzendoff were aware … We omit a detailed account of the facts supporting Gerstein’s money-laundering conviction, for while employees Davis and Krizman clearly participated in this scheme (in addition to the bank fraud), the record does not establish