Case law

United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Patrick J. Doherty, Cross-Appellee

969 F.2d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 24, 1992

We once mentioned in passing that § 1344 probably prohibits bare check kiting, Kucik, 844 F.2d at 499-500 , but language in passing does not establish the law of the Circuit. United States v. … And there isn’t anything here that is unusual in my view .that would qualify for a further enhancement. Sentencing Tr. at 44. We believe that the court’s analysis did not properly apply the Guidelines.

Robert J. Sheldon and Joan M. Sheldon, Doing Business as World Bazaar of Southlake v. Munford, Incorporated, a Georgia Corporation

950 F.2d 403 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 5, 1991

Munford argues, however, that the record establishes failure to mitigate damages as a matter of law. … Yet, it appears that the concern relates more to uncertainty as to cause than uncertainty as to amount and that “[w]here ... in an established business with clearly defined business experience as to profit and loss ...

Reed v. Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc.

14 F. App'x 679 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2001

Malinowski testified by affidavit that Lefco had several years of finance experience and that he believed she was more qualified. … All of Lawrence Chevrolet’s responses were prefaced with a qualifier: “Respondent dealership was sold in December 1998.

Denny, Jeffrey C. v. Gudmanson, Donald W.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 18, 2001

When the case falls under sec. 2254(d)(1)’s "contrary to" clause, we review the state court decision de novo to determine the legal question of what is clearly established law as determined by the Supreme Court and whether … We cannot conclude that the state court’s determination that Kent Denny’s statements were directly admissible against Jeffrey is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,254 Thomas F. Costello, Cross-Appellant v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Cross-Appellee

711 F.2d 1361 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 22, 1983

Control is clearly established where the account is discretionary, a power of attorney has been executed in favor of the broker, and the trades completed without prior approval by the customer. … Booth, supra, 430 F.2d at 135; but see Jaffe, supra, at 320 (“expert may ... be essential to qualifying many *1370 ... documents and ... reports”).

United States v. Isa Yusufu, A/K/A Uni Kano, A/K/A David Barbarine

63 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 1, 1995

the government’s case is sufficient to qualify him for the obstruction increase. … The district court’s decision to increase the defendant’s offense level by two for obstruction of justice was not clearly erroneous. III.

A. Earl Bell, John E. Christian, and Ben Z. Klatch v. Trustees of Purdue University and Purdue University

975 F.2d 422 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 26, 1992

Subsequently, the court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment holding that Purdue’s TIAA-CREF Plan qualified as a bona fide employee benefit plan under section 4(f)(2) and that “Purdue’s contributions … We note that we have held that Purdue University is an instrumentality of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, Kashani v.

Follett Higher Education Group, Inc. v. Berman

629 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 20, 2011

Where the trial court correctly states the law, its determination of whether the facts met the legal standard will be disturbed only if it is clearly erroneous. See Pinkston v. … Conclusion Follett did not establish that Berman & Associates acted in a fiduciary capacity, under any theory, within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

NCR Corporation v. WTM I Company

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2014

This is a factual finding, and thus one that we would disturb only if it were clearly erroneous. It is not. … But again, Burlington Northern establishes that not all parties fit- ting that bill will qualify as arrangers.

Franco Damian Ferreyra v. William P. Barr

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 16, 2020

To qualify, the visitor must have a passport from a participating country and waive the right to contest removal, except based on asylum. Id. § 1187(a)–(b). … To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the ap- plicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

Konczak v. Tyrrell

603 F.2d 13 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 20, 1979

established constitutional rights that his action cannot be reasonably characterized as being in good faith." … Disposing of the remaining arguments, we note that the Congress plainly provided in the language of Section 1988 and this court clearly stated in Dawson v.

United States v. Arnaout, Enaam M.

431 F.3d 994 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 2, 2005

In addition, we find that the district court erred when it failed to consider whether Arnaout qualified for the abuse of trust enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. … We find all of the district court’s findings on this issue consistent with the record, not clearly erroneous, and sufficient to support the district court’s refusal to apply § 3A1.4.

Jane Doe 9 v. Steven Sloan

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2026

Even if they had, the district judge found that any such right was not clearly established, meaning that qual- ified immunity would shield Sheriff Sloan and Deputy Bent from liability.

United States v. Thomas S. Ross and John Collori

77 F.3d 1525 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 2, 1996

After a qualifying student completed his application, the lending institution would send a loan check directly to ISC. … ISC catered primarily to low-income students who qualified for federal financial aid funds.

United States v. George A. Doubet

969 F.2d 341 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1992

Indeed, the use of the qualifying phrase “such as,” makes it “apparent that ‘being tied, bound, or locked up’ are listed by way of example rather than limitation.” United States v. … We find the record here establishes that the jury must have found such a falsehood, thereby providing independent support for the enhancement.

McKinney v. Cadleway Properties, Inc.

548 F.3d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 13, 2008

The undisputed evidence here establishes that Cadleway is a debt collector, not a creditor. … The confirmation portion of the letter is clearly confusing on its face. I therefore respectfully dissent.

Swaback v. American Information Technologies Corp.

103 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 20, 1996

Swaback did not meet the requirements for a lump sum distribution because he was not on the active payroll, and the SPD clearly states, in writing, that employees may not elect lump sum pensions directly from SADP status. … Paragraph 1 of section 4 establishes the eligibility requirements for service pensions under the plan: pertinent here, 30 years of service, regardless of age. . Under the SADP, Mr.

Bob Willow Motors, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. General Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Cross-Appellee

872 F.2d 788 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 24, 1989

Liability was established under both the unconscionable practices claim and the Dealer Act claim (it was also established under the wrongful termination claim, but no damages were awarded under that claim, so the district … In any event, it clearly does not compel a new trial. In Williams v.

United States v. Galbraith, Roger G.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 11, 2000

The trial court, however, did rely on Songer’s statements, noting that "[h]ere we have a Probation report that establishes relevant conduct between 350 and 500 grams, and yet I’m provided evidence that it’s clearly over 500 … See U.S.S.G. sec. 3E1.1 (two-level decrease if "defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense").

United States v. Grover Cleveland Barnes

909 F.2d 1059 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 9, 1990

This clearly is not the case. … Snodgrass testified at the suppression hearing, discussed infra, and at trial pursuant to a grant of immunity that he would not be prosecuted for retaining police evidence (the shower cap and cocaine) on December 24 and ingesting