Case law

Currie v. Paper Converting MacHine Co.

202 F. App'x 120 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 11, 2006

that there can be no dispute among reasonable persons of impartial judgment that the plaintiff was clearly better qualified for the position at issue.” … But while this affidavit shows that Currie was an outstanding employee while he worked at O & E, it does not establish that he was “clearly better qualified” than the eight others.

John C. Zinniel v. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue

883 F.2d 1350 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 18, 1989

During 1977, Sierra decided that it would adopt a qualified pension plan. … First, all acknowledge that the taxpayers have the burden of establishing the unreasonableness of the government's position. See Harrison v. Commissioner, 854 F.2d at 265 .

Bannon, Gloria v. Univ Chicago

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 1, 2007

However, Bannon has not established that she consid- ered her workplace to be subjectively offensive. … Argonne has submitted its policy on promotions which clearly shows that references are required for promotion to senior scientist.

Caroline Winter v. Jeffrey C. Miller, Director, Illinois Department of Public Aid

676 F.2d 276 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 20, 1982

The plaintiffs argue this ensured the individual needs of approx- . imately ten percent of the medically needy would go unmet and, therefore, clearly violated 45 C.F.R. § 248.21 (a)(3)(i)(b) (1972). … interprets the regulation and states that “special needs items which are allowed for most AFDC recipients in the state and state supplementary payments for which most of the aged, blind or disabled persons in the state can qualify

United States v. Board of Education of Consolidated High School District 230

983 F.2d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 1993

Facts The Board is a governmental entity established under the laws of the State of Illinois that oversees three public high schools in District 230 in Cook County, Illinois. … A qualified teacher could withdraw sick leave days from the bank only for “prolonged and extended catastrophic illness” and could not withdraw days from the bank for “maternity benefits, elective surgery, illness of family

Frank Rosenberg, Inc. v. Tazewell County

882 F.2d 1165 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 11, 1989

When a separate Rule 58 judgment has not been entered, however, this court may nevertheless hear the appeal if: "the district court clearly intended that the opinion and order from which an appeal was taken would represent … The individual defendants-appellees also ask this court to determine whether they enjoy absolute immunity. Appellees’ Br. at 18.

Wood, Floyd v. Thompson, Tommy G.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 12, 2001

However, as noted, the statute clearly excludes dental procedures from coverage under Part B. There is only one exception to the exclusion of dental services under Part B. … While Wood’s procedure probably does not qualify as "routine dental care," it does not qualify as a "complex surgical procedure" either.

Richard Hoeft v. Tim Anderson

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2011

The court found that “it is not clear whether the prosecutions against Hoeft were commenced based on his un‐warned confessions,” but in any case, Arndt and Anderson were entitled to qualified immunity because the “failure …  to give a Miranda warning was not clearly established as a constitutional violation” at the time the interviews took place. 

John Schultz v. Owens-Illinois Incorporated and District No. 9, International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers

696 F.2d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 22, 1982

No other employees qualified for the apprenticeship program, other than Schultz, filed a grievance. … The cases relied upon by the district court on 'this point are clearly distinguishable. In Hubicki v.

United States v. Peter N. Fernandez, Iii, Peter N. Fernandez, Jr., and Kenneth K. Getty

282 F.3d 500 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 7, 2002

Lyons would review the submitted questionnaires prior to accepting bids on the projects in order to determine whether the bidder was sufficiently qualified for the projects. … The defendants’ alleged actions clearly would have influenced Lyons’ decision to award the contracts to Midwest.

James R. Eads, Lawrence S. Shapiro, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v . Clarence N. Sayen and Don J. Smith

281 F.2d 791 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 12, 1960

However, the District Court found that the President-defendant was the duly qualified and acting President of the Association and that the recall action had been invalid and void. … This Court must accept the findings of fact of the District Court unless we find them clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Nate A. Lindell v. William Pollard

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2017

Still, the court concluded, the Waupun  defendants have qualified immunity because inmates do not have a clearly established  right to sort through contraband or mail it to anyone.   … Moreover, we see no reason to muddy the waters with  an unnecessary discussion of qualified immunity. 

United States v. Ronald L. Lerch

996 F.2d 158 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 7, 1993

We hold that the court clearly did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Lerch. … We have recognized two different standards for establishing a violation of due process by delay. United States v. Roller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1415 (7th Cir.1992).

Charles Middleton, Sr. v. City of Chicago

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 24, 2009

No. 103-158, at 70.3 Congress expressed no desire for USERRA claims to be immune from § 1658(a)’s limitations period. … Ass’n, 541 U.S. at 252, and it is well established that a court should not apply a newly enacted statutory pro- vision retroactively unless Congress has clearly mandated such an extension, see Hughes Aircraft Co. v.

Williams, Clyde B. v. Bartow, Byran

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 20, 2007

We conclude that the decision of the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. … We cannot conclude that Blackledge and Thigpen clearly establish a different rule than that applied by the Wis- consin court.

Daniela Guerra-Rocha v. William P. Barr

951 F.3d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2020

The BIA’s failure to address the critical elements of a legal issue qualifies as a reviewable question of law. Jawad v. Holder, 686 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2012). … If DHS does not oppose the motion, then “the proceedings … should be continued … in the absence of unusual, clearly identified, and supported reasons for not doing so.” Id. at 813.

Rexnord, Inc. v. United States

940 F.2d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 21, 1991

Following a bench trial, the district court agreed with the government that Rexnord had not established a valid inventory loss. This appeal followed. … The government argues that we are faced with a mixed question of law and fact requiring us to apply a clearly erroneous standard.

United States v. Frank Briggs and Daniel Schlacks

700 F.2d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 25, 1983

head,” defense counsel was referring to MacKenzie in medical psychiatric terms in a possible effort to set forth a psychiatric evaluation of MacKenzie, regardless of the fact that *415 there was no medical testimony from a qualified … The law is clearly established that if a defendant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury verdict, “[o]nly when the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could

Searcy, Derrick v. Jaimet, Danny D.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

The Supreme Court has stated that only “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta,” of that Court’s decisions qualify as “clearly established Federal law” for purposes of AEDPA. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000). … The state court’s ap- plication of clearly established law must be objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 123 S.

Gustavo Castellon-Contreras v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

45 F.3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 10, 1995

In addition, we cannot accept the contention, as does the Ninth Circuit, that Congress needed to more clearly indicate its intent to benefit these domiciliaries in this manner. See Castillo-Felix, 601 F.2d at 465 . … domicile as of the date on his application for amnesty fee receipt. 6 Nonetheless, Castellon-Contreras does not qualify for discretionary relief even under our reading of § 212(e) and IRCA.