Case law

United States v. Karl Bullock

454 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 18, 2006

The government rightly observes that comparison with codefendants is not usually enough to establish a sentencing disparity for purposes of § 3553(a)(6). As we said in United States v. … In order to qualify as relevant conduct, drug sales other than the offense of conviction must be found to be “part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.”

Kevin Wilke v. Adam Stublaski

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2019

Because absolute immunity applies to Stublaski’s actions, we do not address whether he violated Wilke’s due-process rights, and if so, whether qualified immunity would apply. See Boogaard v. … We agree with Wilke that judicial immunity does not prevent him from bringing an action against the judges under this statute. Absolute immunity may be abrogated when a legislature clearly intends to do so.

United States v. Jeremy Wilson and Joseph Guarino

169 F.3d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 17, 1999

In this case, the complaint itself established that John Doe appeared before the court to attest to the facts presented in the complaint. … When the sentencing court reminded him that a defendant must demonstrate clearly a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for all his criminal conduct, as § 3El.l(a) requires, Mr.

Tony P. Rogers v. Jason Wells

96 F.4th 1006 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 22, 2024

established federal law. … On a § 2254(d)(1) petition, we review the state court deci- sion de novo to determine a legal question—whether the de- cision is contrary to clearly established federal law. See Denny v.

Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Scofbp, LLC

668 F.3d 873 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 27, 2011

Although the MPPAA does not define “trade or busi- ness,” this court has adopted the test established in Com- missioner v. … Appellees argue that Groetzinger is inapplicable here because MCRI and MCOF were established as limited liability companies. That argument finds support in some case law.

Max Raskin, Robert H. Gollmar, Intervening-Plaintiff-Appellant v. J. Dennis Moran, Ken Timpel, and Charles P. Smith

684 F.2d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1982

The supremacy clause itself clearly resolves that conflict in favor of the federal law. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 436 , 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819). … Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 317 , 101 S.Ct. 1124, 1129 , 67 L.Ed.2d 258 (1981), those means are not immune from supremacy clause analysis when they are specifically directed at offsetting the exact equivalent of

Godkin v. Monahan

83 F. 116 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 8, 1897

rule that parol evidence may be received of the existence of an independent oral agreement not inconsistent with the stipulations of the written contract in respect to which the writing does not speak, but not to vary, qualify … It was clearly, therefore, erroneous to permit evidence tending to establish a parol agreement by Godkin before the signing of the contract that would be in direct contravention of any term of the contract, whether specified

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.

Union Tank Car Company, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

192 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 22, 1999

In re Establishment Inspection of Caterpillar, Inc., 55 F.3d 334, 336 (7th Cir.1995). We affirm findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence. … Because the standard clearly applied to these other employees, the ALJ declined to reach the issue of whether welders would be covered.

Harvey v. Office Of Banks And Real Estate

377 F.3d 698 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 26, 2004

It is not, as OBRE argues, an occasion for the court to march back through the intermediary burden-shifting steps established by McDonnell Douglas. … evidence of pretext unless those differences are so favorable to the plaintiff that there can be no dispute among reasonable persons of impartial judgment that the plaintiff was clearly better qualified for the position

Robert Argento, Joseph Sansone and Bennie Lenard v. Village of Melrose Park, Bennie Lenard v. Robert Argento and Joseph Sansone, and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., Garnishee-Defendant-Appellant. Bennie Lenard v. Village of Melrose Park, Bennie Lenard v. Robert Argento and Joseph Sansone

838 F.2d 1483 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 14, 1988

Act (hereinafter "Tort Immunity Act"). … Illinois law, however, is clearly to the contrary.

United States v. Christ

513 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 28, 2008

In arguing for a judgment of acquittal, Christ argued that insufficient evidence was presented to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. … This exception, therefore, “clearly does not require that the witness have personal knowledge of the entries in the records. The witness need only have knowledge of the procedures under which the records were created.”

United States v. J.P. Stadtmueller

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 17, 2009

Salahuddin that it now believed he did qualify as an armed career criminal. Mr. Salahuddin then moved to withdraw his plea, which the Govern- ment opposed. Judge Clevert granted Mr. … The Judge’s view of the future course of this prosecu- tion clearly was favorable to the defendant. 13 See United States v.

Jane Doe 8 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.

Ismael Hernandez-Alvarez v. William Barr

982 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 16, 2020

No. 20-1459 5 considered “sexual abuse of a minor” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A), “his conviction clearly qualifies as an attempt to commit sexual abuse of a minor” because … He argued that his solicitation conviction did not qualify as an attempt to commit sexual abuse of a minor because the person solicited was an adult investigator rather than a child. Id. at 765.

Verna Emery, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. American General Finance, Incorporated

71 F.3d 1343 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 31, 1996

Just bring the coupon below into my office and if you qualify, we could write your check on the spot. Or, call ahead and I’ll have the check waiting for you. Make this month great with extra cash. … The complaint alleges, a little less clearly than could be desired but clearly enough, that while the letter sent to Emery and other customers of American General Finance implies that the customer is being offered a separate

United States v. Luis Gonzalez, Alphonso Chavez, Jaime Rodriguez, and David C. Perez

319 F.3d 291 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2003

This argument must fail because no one other than Perez can establish standing to assert Perez’s constitutional rights. See United States v. … A defense lawyer’s failure to inspect the evidence that has been admitted does not qualify as a government “suppression.” d.

Dennis Ray Anthony v. George C. Wilkinson, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Marion, Ill., Helene Beirne, Alaska Commissioner of Health & Social Services, and the Attorney General of the State of Alaska, Roy J. Girouard, John H. Killary and John E. Kasper v. George C. Wilkinson, Warden, Cornelius D. Hogan, Intervening Aubrey McKay Carl Vincent Henry, William K. Mederios, Peter M. K. Lono, Donald A. Morgan, George Shimabuku, and Leo McGill v. George C. Wilkinson, Warden, Herbert William Lawrence v. Robert I. Elsea, Warden, Cornelius D. Hogan, Intervening Roy J. Girouard, John H. Killary, John E. Kasper, Carl Vincent Henry, Aubrey McKay Donald A. Morgan, William K. Mederios, Peter M. K. Lono and George Shimabuku v. George C. Wilkinson, Warden, Cornelius D. Hogan, State of Delaware, State of Alaska, and State of Hawaii, Intervening Herbert William Lawrence v. Robert I. Elsea, Warden, Cornelius D. Hogan, Intervening

637 F.2d 1130 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 27, 1981

The governmental respondents and intervenors argue that the record in the instant case, unlike that in Lono, clearly discloses the reasons for petitioners' transfers into federal custody. … Such purposes of transfer, petitioners argue, do not qualify as "specialized treatment."

Burnell v. Gates Rubber Co.

647 F.3d 704 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2011

For instance, Burnell claims that “[Gates Rubber] would terminate for not signing a commitment letter only if the underlying offense was a terminable offense, for which lying and insubordina- tion did not qualify.” … But the testimony cited actually contradicts Burnell’s claim: Carvalho clearly states that an employee might be fired for refusing to sign an insubordination warning.

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. United States

367 F.3d 650 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 29, 2004

The Supreme Court held that the Indian Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the power to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity from suit. Id. at 48. … As the Supreme Court established in Currin v.