Case law

Dennis G. Moore, George R. Moore and Sierra Products, Inc., Plaintiffs- Cross-Appellees v. Wesbar Corporation and Bernard R. Weber, Cross

701 F.2d 1247 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 10, 1983

A clarification of this issue is clearly a prerequisite to our addressing the issue of obviousness. … , which may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.

Jackson v. United States

9 F. App'x 550 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 23, 2001

The government concedes that it cannot establish “use” under the new Bailey rules, but argues that it did establish “carrying,” the definition of which was not affected by Bailey. See Broadway v. … Accordingly, pre-Bailey convictions can still be affirmed where the actions of a defendant or his co-conspirators clearly fit the definition of “carry” even if they may not also qualify as “use.”

United States v. Patrick L. Stitman

472 F.3d 983 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2007

Stitman argues that the district court clearly erred in applying a three-level enhancement to his sentence under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) of the Sentencing Guidelines. … Other circuits, following the Application Notes, have explicitly held that a hand can qualify as such an “object” for purposes of § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E). See, e.g., United States v.

15 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1783, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7758 Marian Barnes, Cross-Appellee v. Callaghan & Company, Cross-Appellant

559 F.2d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 29, 1977

We cannot agree with the district judge that the gravamen of the original complaint “was clearly the injury to plaintiff’s reputation * * * ” (Plaintiff’s App. 3). … Tribune Co., 24 Ill.2d 437 , 181 N.E.2d 105 (1962)) or by an employer’s qualified privilege.

Devin Seats v. Mindi Nurse

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 24, 2025

This all brings us to the instant case, where, through coun- sel, Seats filed a §2254 petition arguing that the Illinois Appel- late Court’s decision not to remand his case for resentencing was contrary to clearly established … established Federal Law’ or ‘was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.’”

Tyrone Petties v. Imhotep Carter

795 F.3d 688 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 30, 2015

Evidence that a medical provider failed to abide by an established treatment protocol is evidence from which a jury could infer deliberate indifference. See Mata v. … Roane Cnty., Tenn., 534 F.3d 531, 542-43 (6th Cir.2008) (affirming denial of qualified immunity for paramedic whose failure to follow established treatment protocols could constitute deliberate indifference).

Integrated Genomics, Inc. v. Gerngross

636 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2011

efforts: Gerngross testified that 1 (...continued) step in enabling yeasts to express human proteins is to re- engineer the yeasts so that they attach the appropriate sugars to protein molecules—sugars that the human immune … IG had the burden to establish that Gerngross com- mitted fraud by clear and convincing evidence.

Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Federal Trade Commission

156 F.2d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 12, 1946

Establishing or maintaining delivered price zones or price differentials between * * * such zones. 3. Establishing or maintaining classifications of customers * * * for pricing purposes. 4. … Paragraph 5 prohibiting invoice filing is clearly erroneous since November, 1939, it has not filed price lists.

United States v. Sutton

77 F. App'x 892 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 7, 2003

Sutton maintains that Officer Curwick never gave him a Miranda warning and that the district court clearly erred in finding otherwise. … Law enforcement officers are qualified based on their experience and familiarity with the drug trade to identify drugs.

American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. K-Mart Corp.

717 F.2d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 13, 1983

The lease clearly states that tenant is under no duty to make repairs that are required to be made by landlord, and it uses the term “may” to indicate that the remedies available to tenant are optional and voluntary. … Where, however, the testimony of a qualified witness as to the value of property has a reasonable factual basis, it should not be so excluded. Cf. Fontainbleau Hotel Corp. v.

Badelle, Robert E. v. Correll, Curtis

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2006

We are therefore required to distinguish between state court decisions that are clearly erroneous and those that are so erroneous as to be “objectively unreasonable”; only the latter qualify for habeas relief under AEDPA. … We cannot conclude that this decision is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 3.

United States v. Patrick James Fisher

442 F.2d 109 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 14, 1971

Thus, when Fisher called May Schort, he was following the exact procedure established by the Selective Service System. … The Stonecipher memorandum does not set forth any such qualifying or explanatory remarks.

Virginia Simpson v. Borg-Warner Automotive, Inc.

196 F.3d 873 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 18, 1999

Simpson and Borg-Warner disagree whether company policy clearly barred the removal of tags from these parts in these circumstances. Simpson reported the worker to Ames. … Conclusion Because Simpson failed to show an adverse employment action, she has not established a prima facie case of Title VII sex discrimination.

United States v. Frank W. Simmons

215 F.3d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2000

We review a district court’s decision to depart for abuse of discretion and accept the findings of fact underlying such a departure unless clearly erroneous. See United States v. … Simmons briefly argues that his consultation of counsel immunizes him from contempt, but “an attorney may not exculpate his client of contempt by advising him to disobey an order of the court.”

Manuel Joaquim MacEdo Etc. v. The Boeing Company, Keith L. Boskoff, Etc. v. Transportes Aereos Portugueses, Etc.

693 F.2d 683 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 23, 1982

Plaintiffs argue that a second forum does not qualify as an alternative forum unless each defendant was amenable to process in the second forum when plaintiff began his action. … Some idea of the type of evidence available to establish the landing speed and location would have made the motion more persuasive.

East St. Louis 100 v. Bellon Wrecking

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 6, 2005

A court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law or makes a factual finding that is clearly erroneous. Id. at 13. … Even if this is true, it establishes only that Bellon’s actions may harm the union; it does not prove that the harm will be irreparable.

Scavenger Service Corporation v. Courtney

85 F.2d 825 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 1, 1936

injunctive relief against Courtney or Gilbert re the pickéting, etc. because equity will not interfere with official duties. (9) In Illinois the fixing of prices is against public policy which encourages an open market. (10) Immunity … of public official for participation in conspiracy (by Gilbert) does not exist where acts are outside scope of office, and Gilbert’s acts were clearly outside the scope of his duties.

Grahl v. United States

261 F. 487 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 7, 1919

This, clearly, was an act of special grace in favor of aliens who were alien enemies during that war, and who when that war ended no longer needed the grace. … In 1798 Congress established executive control of alien enemies.

Harrison-Halsted Community Group, Inc. v. Housing and Home Finance Agency

310 F.2d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 28, 1962

We think it is well settled that in a private suit in a federal court, where it is claimed that a substantial federal question is involved, it must clearly appear that defendant’s acts constituted the invasion of plaintiffs … It has long been established that such agencies are not truly juridical persons but are strictly representatives of the government, who may not be sued in evasion of sovereign immunity.”

prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,208 Craig Dehmlow v. Austin Fireworks

963 F.2d 941 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 7, 1992

The possibility of being haled into an Illinois court creates a particularly effective deterrent to the manufacture of unsafe fireworks where purchasers of Austin’s fireworks might otherwise be immune from Illinois tort law … defendant only with respect to “any cause of action arising from the doing of any [acts, such as the defendant’s transaction of business in Illinois] which confer jurisdiction on the Illinois courts (emphasis added)”). 7 Austin clearly