Case law

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 .

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.

In the Matter of Peachtree Lane Associates, Limited, Debtor-Appellee

150 F.3d 788 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 31, 1998

The Granaders’ argument is premised, of course, on the assumption that the phrase had a clearly established meaning in the venue provision’s earlier incarnation — that is, that it was consistently interpreted by the courts … Langenkamp clearly means that the Granaders were not entitled to a jury trial in this case.

Bond v. Stanton

630 F.2d 1231 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 19, 1980

Indeed, as we remarked in Bond III, "(t)he legislative history . . . clearly indicates that Congress intended to cover not only pending cases generally but this case in particular." 555 F.2d at 174 (emphasis supplied). … propounding the arguments it has set forth at various stages of this litigation, the state may well have been motivated by a legitimate desire to contest what it perceived to be a potential infringement of its constitutional immunity

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.  

Bread Political Action Committee v. The Federal Election Commission

635 F.2d 621 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 5, 1980

Advisory Opinion machinery contained in Section 437f which immunize those persons who obtain favorable opinions from the Commission and also those activity is materially indistinguishable. … The Act, however, clearly prohibits the solicitation of contributions to the separate segregated funds, not solicitation of membership in the trade associations themselves.

United States v. Darryl Wayne Hall, Carl Stewart, Also Known as Pee Wee, and Kevin Ferguson

109 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 22, 1997

We do not think that the enhancements for firearm possession are clearly erroneous. 6. … He was at the top of the food chain and clearly meets the aggravating rolé.

Hollander, Jacque v. Brown, James

457 F.3d 688 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 9, 2006

Reject- ing this contention, the court held that the “[p]laintiff clearly has not pleaded the elements of equitable estoppel.” Id. at 296. … Hol- lander concedes in her appellate brief, this claim does not conform to the equitable estoppel paradigm established by the Illinois case law.

United States v. Andre Bowyer

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 17, 2024

It is in the qualified immunity context where a closely analogous case is required; neither the Supreme Court nor this court has ever equated a “clear or obvious” er- ror with the violation of “clearly established” law that … negates qualified immunity.

Tammy Cowherd v. United States Department Of Housing And Urban Development

827 F.2d 40 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 22, 1987

In this case, HUD's sale of Stonekey II was clearly within the statutory scope of its authority. … The record in this case establishes "a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made," Burlington Truck Lines v.

Cyril Korte v. HHS

735 F.3d 654 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 8, 2013

In other words, where it applies, the church-autonomy principle operates as a complete immunity, or very nearly so. … That qualifies as a substantial burden on religious exercise, properly understood. The plaintiffs have established a prima facie case under RFRA.

United States v. Montes, Luis

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 24, 2004

Montes did not qualify for the safety valve exception because he was not completely truthful during his proffer interview. In particular, the court found incredible Mr. … In sum, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Mr.

Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, and Cross-Appellant v. Insurance Corporation of Ireland, Limited, and Cross-Appellee

969 F.2d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 20, 1992

The U of I then moved for summary judgment, but the district court found that the policy was not ambiguous, reasoning that as written the policy clearly provided for a single $5,000,000 limit. … Further, as the district court noted, jurisdiction would also likely exist under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1330 . Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v.

Tom Xiong v. Jennifer Fischer

787 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 18, 2015

It is well-established that labor unions owe a duty of fair representation to their mem- bers. See Clark v. … amounted to a deprivation of rights, privi- leges, or immunities under the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Marvin Thomas v. Thomas Dart

39 F.4th 835 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2022

For present purposes, we can ignore those questions. 8 No. 21-2458 “Incarcerated people have a clearly established right to be free from physical harm inflicted by others … And this is the risk Thomas suggests—though does not clearly assert—under the third el- ement that reasonable officers in the intake clerks’ positions would have appreciated.

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).

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."

Federal Trade Commission v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc.

861 F.2d 1020 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1988

In order to establish that an act or practice is deceptive, the FTC must establish that the representations, omissions, or practices likely would mislead consumers, acting reasonably, to their detriment. … Therefore, we accept the findings of the magistrate unless clearly erroneous. See Elmore v. Foltz, 768 F.2d 773, 776 (6th Cir.1985); see also Yates v.

Usha Vakharia, M.D. v. Swedish Covenant Hospital, Nancy Loeber, M.D., Demetrius A. Trakas, M.D.

190 F.3d 799 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1999

To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, Vakharia must present evidence that: (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the job in question or was meeting SCH’s legitimate performance … Nevertheless, these changes in the composition of anesthesiology personnel clearly place a cloud of suspicion over Loeber’s modus operandi. 9 Such evidence standing alone, however, is insufficient to establish pretext.

James E. Steebe v. United States Railroad Retirement Board

708 F.2d 250 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 13, 1983

Steebe alleges that had the Bureau established the onset date of disability correctly, 6 he would have been awarded a period of disability. … Claims for benefits — Publication of Board’s regulations (c) Each qualified employee whose claim for benefits has been denied in whole or in part upon an initial determination with respect thereto upon a basis other than