Case law

Thomas E. Lister v. Patrick J. Lucey

575 F.2d 1325 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 4, 1978

the $7,000 recovery is precluded by the Eleventh Amendment is an issue that should be considered by the district court on remand, but it does not affect the jurisdiction of this Court or the district court. 19 A state’s immunity … to;” if the Section is limited only to those whose spouses were bona fide residents at the time of their marriage, then plaintiffs may not have standing to challenge the alleged sex discrimination because they would not qualify

Ronald Del Raine v. Norman A. Carlson

77 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 1, 1996

Qualified Immunity 76 Both the magistrate judge and the defendants have failed to respond to Del Raine's argument that defendants waived the defense of qualified immunity by not raising it until 1986--13 years after the complaint … Thus, because the law here was clearly established, defendants cannot avail themselves of the qualified immunity defense against alleged violations of the due process clause or of the eighth amendment.

United States v. Dykema

666 F.2d 1096 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 9, 1981

His tax liability is to be investigated and established in the same manner as that of any other taxpayer. … U.S. 48, 56 , 85 S.Ct. 248, 254 , 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964) 4 In Ballard, Justice Jackson exclaimed: "I would ... have done with this business of judicially examining other people's faiths." 322 U.S. at 95 , 64 S.Ct. at 890 5 Clearly

United States v. Charles G. Nickels

502 F.2d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 1, 1974

These questions and answers were clearly within the “in substance” allegation of the indictment and did not constitute an impermissible amendment. Cf. United States v. … Of course a witness may give an answer and then qualify it, but the qualification must also be responsive or it is irrelevant.

Christopher Roberts v. FHFA

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 3, 2018

(We note that sec‐ tion  1821(j)  directly  immunizes FDIC  only  in  its  capacity  as  receiver,  not  in  its  corporate  capacity.)  … At that point, the  Agency acts as an immune conservator rather than as a non‐ immune regulator.        In any case, Treasury did not exceed its statutory authority  in agreeing to the Third Amendment. 

Joseph K. Majko v. Linley E. Pearson and Daniel R. McBride

1 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 19, 1993

The state court conducted an evidentiary hearing on this claim and concluded that any error was harmless, because Majko failed to establish that his decision to plead guilty would have been affected if he had been clearly … Even if there was some confusion regarding the classification of the offense, it has been clearly defined as a felony for purposes of establishing a habitual offender conviction regardless of the sentence imposed.

United States v. Tartareanu

884 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 8, 2018

The government contended that Bank of America's losses qualified as an "intended loss" under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, and, therefore, were properly included in the loss calculation. … However, the district court found that Daniela's participation was just as important, and based on the facts it set forth, we cannot say that finding was clearly erroneous.

Baird, Arthur P. v. Davis, Cecil

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 12, 2004

Ordinarily of course a litigant can ask a lower federal court for an innovative con- stitutional interpretation, such as a new immunity from the death penalty. … The opening brief quoted subsection (c)(6) as well as (c)(2), and said that “the evidence presented at Baird’s trial and at his sentencing hearing clearly established the existence of both statutory mitigators.”

James Rolf Bjerkan v. United States

529 F.2d 125 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 18, 1975

New York, supra. 22 This result corresponds with established notions regarding the supremacy clause. 3 Chief Justice Marshall in McCullock v. … Bjerkan's pardon may not immunize him from disqualifications by state licensing agencies. The new Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed.Rules Evid.

United States v. Maria Urrego De Soto, Gustavo Chaverra Cardona, and Ruth Urrego Chaverra

885 F.2d 354 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 29, 1989

This testimony clearly supported the government’s characterization. Mr. … The repeated testimony was (1) not overly broad, (2) relevant to establishing Mr.

Arreola v. Godinez

546 F.3d 788 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 14, 2008

It also held that defendant Ernesto Velasco, the former Director of the Jail and the only County defendant sued in both his official and individual capacities, was not entitled to summary judgment or qualified immunity at … Once again, the record does not support the County’s accusations that Arreola’s evidence lacks sufficient detail to establish typicality.

United States v. Sutton

582 F.3d 781 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2009

The enrollment application listed one individual qualified to oversee the counseling services — Dr. Ruth Haggerty, a PhD in clinical psychology. Dr. … The district court’s conclusion that Sutton bore responsibility for the entire $9 million is not clearly erroneous.

Kelly v. Municipal Courts of Marion County

97 F.3d 902 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 2, 1996

However, Kelly fails to set forth clearly the legal framework upon which he bases his claim. … Yet the evidence before us falls far short of establishing that Sears actually told Mayer.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Eckerd

575 F.2d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 25, 1978

by law” and thus immunized from the prohibition of Section 1905. 5 U.S.C. § 301 provides: “The head of an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct … Applying the four tests established in Cort v.

Swanson v. American Consumer Industries

517 F.2d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 29, 1975

They do not qualify as ordinary "taxable costs" either at common law or by statute. 1 Meddaugh v. Wilson, 151 U.S. 333, 347 , 14 S.Ct. 356 , 38 L.Ed. 183 (1894); Sprague v. Ticonic Nat. … The District Court's acceptance of these facts for the basis of the decision on the question of fees, and the determination as to the appropriate hourly rates were not clearly erroneous.

United States v. Frank Peter Balistrieri, Steve Disalvo, and Dennis Librizzi, Defendants

779 F.2d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 26, 1985

Prevention in such circumstances is clearly preferable to attempts to cure. … This provision clearly applies to the original indictment.

Beegle v. Thomson

138 F.2d 875 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 6, 1943

On the other hand, defendants more clearly adhere to the prior art and avoid the very elements which, it seems to us, led to Beegle’s grant. We think the District Court correctly held that they have not infringed. … respect to the noninclusive type ■of his product. * * * It does not estop him in any way from making devices which are not within the class licensed, for as to such products the licensee takes nothing by the license, no immunity

Eagle Cove Camp & Conference C v. Town of Woodboro, Wisconsin

734 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2013

On May 8, 2001, Woodboro voluntarily subjected itself to the Oneida County Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordi- nance (“OCZSPO”), which establishes zoning districts throu- ghout the County. … The evidence clearly suggests otherwise. The OCZSPO has a neutral purpose that incorporates Woodboro’s Comprehensive and Land Use Plans.

United States v. Blanchard

542 F.3d 1133 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2008

That clearly opened the door for [the prosecutor] to read into the record the Court’s comments from November 15th because that was clearly the first time Marshall Blanchard was confronted with what this Court believed ... … So the Court merely wanted [the prosecutor] to read into the record accurately and clearly the Court’s comments, which were no surprise to [defense counsel].

United States v. Robert A. Soy, Robert A. Soy v. United States

413 F.3d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 28, 2005

Such a determination is clearly permissible under the congressional determination concerning the punishment of murder committed in the course of arson. … There.is no question that, after Jones, the dwelling did not qualify as being "used in” interstate commerce for purposes of § 844(i).