Case law

Ahmed Ali v. Deborah Achim, Michael Chertoff, and Alberto Gonzales, Ahmed Ali v. Alberto Gonzales

468 F.3d 462 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 6, 2006

An interpretation that requires the Attorney General and his agents to sift through each state’s code and prospectively identify by regulation every single crime that would qualify as “particularly serious” would impose an … But the absence of a similar provision for nonaggravated-felony crimes does not imply that only aggravated felonies can qualify as “particularly serious” crimes.

Triad Associates, Inc. v. Chicago Housing Authority

892 F.2d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 15, 1990

Under this rationale, § 1985(3)'s protection would clearly extend to white persons and whites as a class of persons. … Clearly, discrimination against an Hispanic was no more in the mind of Congress in 1871 than was discrimination against whites.

Symanowicz v. Army And Air Force Exchange Service

672 F.2d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 16, 1982

The Exchange made a final decision that Symanowicz did not qualify for benefits as an Exchange employee. It has consistently adhered to that position. … The Board of Contract Appeals disagreed, finding that Kei "clearly rendered the service requested by the Exchange as a matter of personal and business accommodation ... and as a voluntary favor."

Banks v. Secretary Of Indiana Family And Social Services Administration

997 F.2d 231 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 15, 1993

As Arthur's survivor, Marie Banks qualifies as a beneficiary of the regulations and has shown that she was similarly adversely affected. … Department of Public Welfare, 566 N.E.2d 544 (Ind.App.1991), demonstrates that 42 C.F.R. § 447.15 and its state counterpart do not immunize Medicaid recipients from provider collection suits.

United States v. Garcia Parra, Arturo

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2005

On this basis, the court found Agent Becka qualified to testify as an expert. … The court did not clearly err in refusing to grant Arturo a minor role adjustment. 16 Nos. 03-2056 & 03-2171 B.

United States v. Rishi Shah

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2026

Ma and Ketchum received immunity before trial while Desai pleaded guilty and agreed to testify as a government witness. … This left the court to conclude that Shah and Agarwal failed to establish a Sixth Amendment vi- olation. 1.

Clay Russell v. Dale Devereaux

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 5, 2010

Thus, the trial court concluded that the defendants’s search of Russell’s vehicle was lawful and they are entitled to qualified immunity. … We review de novo the question of qualified immunity; as the parties have framed it, that question is whether the officers violated Russell’s “clearly established” right not to be arrested without probable cause.  

Byron A. Piner v. The United States of America

222 F.2d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 27, 1955

But Judge Phillips qualified his stated minimum by saying: “Of course, if the defendant is learned in the law, or it otherwise clearly appears that he knows his constitutional rights, a less inquiry may suffice.” … Clearly, Piner knew he had a right to counsel; could have a trial; that the court would appoint counsel for him if he, Piner, desired one.

United States v. Robey

831 F.3d 857 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2016

The district court ruled that the evidence found during the search of Robey’s home confirmed a pattern of common conduct sufficient to establish the ten additional vehicles as relevant conduct. … See § lB1.3(a)(2) n.9(B) (“Offenses that do not qualify as part of a common scheme or plan may nonetheless qualify as part of the same course of conduct.”). Therefore, the district court did not commit clear error. III.

United States v. Anthony Volpendesto

746 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2014

The district court found that this  part  of  the  conversation—and  a  few  other  threads  that  we  need  not  go  into—did  not  qualify  for  the  Rule  804(b)(3)  ex‐ ception  because  these  portions  did  not  clearly … Thus, Sarno  has failed to establish procedural error on this basis.  c.

Raymond J. Torres, Franklin J. Utz, and Gerald F. Schmit v. Wisconsin Department of Health & Social Services, Defendants

838 F.2d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 21, 1988

Thus, a defendant bears a heavy burden in attempting to establish a bfoq defense. … The First Circuit has recently held that “a body-cavity search of female inmates conducted by police officers, involving touching, conducted in a non-hygienic manner and in the presence of male officers, was a clearly established

John Scoby, Cross-Appellants v. Michael D. Neal, Individually and as Warden of the Danville Correctional Center, Dennis Davis and Roger White, Individually and as Officers of the Danville Correctional Center, Cross-Appellees

945 F.2d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 8, 1991

In his accompanying order, the judge found that there was no clearly established right of correctional officers to be free from warrantless body cavity searches as of March 30, 1987, when these searches occurred. … Therefore he held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and accordingly were not liable for monetary damages.

American Can Company v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.

693 F.2d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 17, 1982

We are fully satisfied that they are not clearly erroneous and cannot say that we have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. … American does not qualify for the experiment exception. Amphenol Corp. v. General Time Corp., 397 F.2d 431 (7th Cir.1968). Judge Swygert said in Koehring Co. v.

Universal Oil Products Co. v. Campbell (United States, Intervenor) (Two Cases)

181 F.2d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 6, 1950

The trust agreement then provided that the recipient or beneficiary of the trust fund should >be the American Chemical Society, or a qualified successor. … It was not the public interest that prompted the establishment of the petitioner. It was financial gain and business advantage.

United States v. David Herman Primous

420 F.2d 33 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 20, 1970

This court believes the information given by defendant at the hearing could be reasonably found to clearly outweigh the affidavits. … The board had no burden to seek evidence to aid defendant in establishing his case.

Board of Trustees of Knox County (Indiana) Hospital v. Sullivan

965 F.2d 558 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 25, 1992

However, a hospital would be entitled to urban payment rates only if it qualified under subsection (i) as a rural referral center with over 500 beds. … This section is clearly discretionary, and implies that the other sections are not totally discretionary. 4 *564 IV.

United States v. Aja E. Fudge, Lamont C. Gordon, Edward L. McChristian and Rodney R. Raines

325 F.3d 910 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2003

The affidavit clearly establishes that the government met the statutory criteria set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (l)(c). … This qualifies as constructive possession. Raines does not fully consider our interpretation of the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l).

Dyrek, Gary M. v. Garvey, Jane

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 20, 2003

You may be considered for other types No. 01-3533 9 of available vacancies for which you qualify within the commuting area. … However, Davis clearly testified that in March 2000 there were no vacancies in these positions at the Chicago center.

McCrimmon v. Daley

418 F.2d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 28, 1969

Clearly the requirements *369 of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2281 , supra, are not satisfied here. Moody v. Flowers, 387 U.S. 97 , 87 S.Ct. 1544 , 18 L.Ed.2d 643 (1967) appears dis-positive of this proposition. … A careful reading of the complaint shows that plaintiffs alleged they were being subjected “to the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities secured to them by the Constitution and the laws of the United States."

United States v. Stephen L. Shlater

85 F.3d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 5, 1996

“We will not reverse a district court’s finding on this issue unless clearly erroneous.” Id. In Miranda v. … Rather we ask only whether [the defendant] has established insanity as defined by the Legal Insanity Defense Reform Act (the “Act”). 18 U.S.C. § 17 .