Case law

State of Illinois v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company

935 F.2d 1469 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1991

clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed...." … The existence of a contract in this case does not immunize Panhandle from antitrust liability; it is merely a factor that is relevant to the question of Panhandle's intent to monopolize.

AMP Inc. v. Fleischhacker

823 F.2d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 16, 1987

Fleisch- *1201 hacker, whom Molex found to be a desirable and highly qualified candidate for the position as a result of his background, education, skill, and ability, including demonstrated product management capabilities … Although we conclude that AMP has failed to establish the existence of any particularized trade secrets, it is necessary to discuss briefly one of AMP’s chief contentions on appeal: namely, that if it had established the

Joshua Resendez v. Wendy Knight

692 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 20, 2012

of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or “was based on an unreason- 6 No. 11-1121 able determination of the facts … Yet he offers no authority to establish that the court had to provide such a statement in the sen- tencing judgment itself.

United States v. Artanada White

151 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 15, 1998

Because we have consistently approved of qualified law enforcement officers giving expert testimony on narcotics trafficking if it is helpful to the jury's understanding of the case, any challenge to the police officer's … Indeed, it well-established that the ordinary rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings. United States v. Pippen, 115 F.3d 422, 425 (7th Cir.1997).

Ellis v. City of Chicago

667 F.2d 606 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 15, 1981

Officer Calandra and Sergeant Holub thus clearly qualified as "witness(es) identified with an adverse party" for purposes of Rule 611(c). 20 We do not believe, however, that this conclusion requires reversal of the judgment … The record clearly indicates that the trial judge invited objections from both parties after he charged the jury, but before the jury began its deliberations. Tr. at 502.

Buckbee v. P. Hohenadel, Jr., Co.

224 F. 14 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 5, 1915

Rep. 438— which does not appear to be qualified or disaffirmed in any decision, English or American, called to our notice. … The recovery therein must be measured by the actual loss due to the misrepresentation, to be established by proof through the grower and other witnesses.

Mohsin Yafai v. Mike Pompeo

924 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 23, 2019

It is also important to clearly reject any implication that the panel’s opinion in Yafai v. Pompeo endorses a system in which the executive branch is free to deny visa applications on the basis of bias or whim. … The provisions of § 1182(a)(3)(B) establish specific criteria for determining terrorism‐ related inadmissibility.

Jorge Velasquez-Garcia v. Eric Holder, Jr.

760 F.3d 571 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2014

(What they may not know is which flaws will be considered minor enough to qualify as procedural or technical glitches.) … applies equally to administrative rules, except that in the latter case the court asks “whether Congress has expressly conferred power on the agency to promulgate rules with retroactive effect and, if so, whether the agency clearly

William R. Lee Irrevocable Trust v. Lee (In Re Lee)

898 F.3d 768 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2018

Other Indiana statutes establishing exclusive remedies specify the exclusivity in the text. See, e.g., Ind. … Lester’s proposed immunity would encourage and reward post- merger “trickery, evasion, procrastination, spoliation, botheration,” 5 shell games, and fourberies. Lester’s proposed immunity makes no sense.

Lori M. GLEASON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MESIROW FINANCIAL, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee

118 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 25, 1997

Gleason likewise failed to utilize the complaint procedures clearly set forth in the company’s sexual harassment policy, which was included in an employee handbook provided to her. … Gleason has failed to establish even a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination, for it is apparent in light of her previous trading errors that she was not “qualified for her position.” Id.

United States v. Peterson, George

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 4, 2001

During its case, the government presented three expert witnesses to help establish this jurisdictional theory. … Estep, who had been given immunity by the government, had previously testified that he had sold marijuana from his home for about two years and was planning to sell the marijuana taken by defendants in January.

28 Fair empl.prac.cas. 342, 28 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,521 Bettie Ethel Clark, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Chrysler Corporation

673 F.2d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1982

To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under Title VII, she had to establish: (1) that she belongs to a racial minority; (2) that she applied for and was qualified for the job for which the employer was seeking … Given these factual findings, the appellant clearly failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. 47 Regarding the appellant's claim that Chrysler retaliated against her for the filing of her EEOC charge and for

United States v. Lisa Hofschulz

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 25, 2024

The evidence established that in late 2014 the Hofschulzes opened a “pain management clinic” in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin—a suburban community just west of Milwaukee—as a front for an opioid mill. … Sufficiency of the Evidence Finally, the Hofschulzes argue that the evidence was in- sufficient to establish their guilt. Great deference is owed to the jury’s verdict. United States v.

United States v. Willie James Cooper

580 F.2d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 2, 1978

United States, 242 U.S. 470, 490 , 37 S.Ct. 192, 196 , 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917)), we also recognize “the well-established principle that penal statutes are to be construed strictly” (FCC v. … Section 2114 originated in section 15 of the Act to Establish the Post Office of the United States (Act of March 2,1799, ch. 43, 1 Stat. 736 ).

LAJIM, LLC v. Gen. Elec. Co.

917 F.3d 933 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2019

Critically, we made clear that "[w]e [did] not suggest, of course, that once a citizen suit has cleared RCRA's statutory hurdles it is immune from all other constitutional and preclusive doctrines, such as standing, mootness … The district court weighed the competing expert testimony and found GE's expert made reasonable conclusions supported by facts; we see nothing in the court's factual findings that are clearly erroneous. ii.

Sergio Meza v. Merrick B. Garland

5 F.4th 732 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 20, 2021

The judge determined that Meza was ineligible for cancellation because he had failed to fulfill two of the statutory criteria: (1) that he was a person of “good moral character” and (2) that qualifying relatives would suffer … Nor does the fact that the immigration judge said Meza violated the re- quirement to have a device in “his car” change our analysis— although the judge’s language might have been more precise, in this context, “his car” clearly

Dean Patterson v. Stephen A. Portch

915 F.2d 1575 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 9, 1990

The resolution of the issue depends on whether, in 1979 when the act occurred, the law was "clearly established" that "constructive resignation" is a form of involuntary termination that entitles the employee to a hearing … Yet we took some pages to reach this conclusion, which was not compelled by precedent, not obvious on the basis of precedent, and, in short, not "clearly established," at the time of the incident (although it would be now

Tommy R. Schroeder v. Hamilton School District

282 F.3d 946 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 11, 2002

Schroeder, like any well-qualified teacher, should be a good role model for his students, not because he is homosexual, but because he is an effective and enthusiastic teacher who wants them to learn. … The defendants’ failure to address, to Schroeder’s satisfaction, his complaints of harassment does not, however, establish an equal protection violation.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. National Labor Relations Board

411 F.2d 356 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 26, 1969

It is significant to note that the Board did not find that the unit was autonomous but only that it was ‘relatively’ so, without explanation as to why the qualifying word. … On the contrary, the record clearly demonstrates that the unit determined was non-autonomous.

Tyrone Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

945 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 17, 2019

In this case, the magistrate judge found evidence to con- clude Gabb’s back pain qualified as an objectively serious medical condition. … Summary judgment for Wexford was clearly appropri- ate because Gabb has no evidence of harm. A plaintiff can bring a Monell-style claim against a private corporation acting under color of state law. Whiting v.