Case law

Martina Beverly v. Abbott Laboratories, Incorpora

817 F.3d 328 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2016

render a 10 No. 15-1098 contract unenforceable”); Dillard, 483 F.3d at 508 (“The mate- riality of additional written terms introduced after an oral agreement is reached is not established … Yang, 795 F.3d 674, 679 (7th Cir. 2015) (holding that discretionary review was improper, in part, because the party “made no attempt to demonstrate why his case qualifies as one of these” rare cas- es).

United States v. Thousand

558 F. App'x 666 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 12, 2014

In her motion to suppress, Thousand never asserted that the prosecutor’s application for a § 2708(d) order, if taken at face value, does not establish probable cause. … Nor would we conclude that the court clearly erred by deciding that Thousand’s role was not so insignificant as to make her a minimal participant.

United States v. Christopher Duguay

93 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 31, 1996

“[Standardized criteria or established routine must regulate” inventory searches. Florida v. … The Illinois Local Government Tort Immunity statute does not impose a duty on the police to protect the property of individuals from tort or crime.

United States v. Hanafi Monem

104 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 13, 1997

Monem bore the burden of “clearly demonstrat[ing] acceptance of responsibility for Ms offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a); Jones, 52 F.3d at 701 . … For instance, the government’s recommendation at sentencing that no fine be imposed was somewhat qualified by its .statement that “the discovery of the Social Security income raises some question in the Government’s mind

Anthony Jones v. Dr. Mary Flannigan and Dr. Vallabehiem

949 F.2d 398 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 11, 1991

the basis of qualified immunity. … Although we question whether this language triggers the qualified immunity defense, Maul v. Constan, 928 F.2d 784, 785-86 (7th Cir.1991), we need not decide this question.

United States of America Ex Rel. Thomas Lemon v. Frank Pate, Warden

427 F.2d 1010 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 26, 1970

The answers which he gave, corroborated by the police officers on the main aspects of the ease, demonstrate that his mental capacity was such as to qualify him as a witness. … And a finding of fact made by the .trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. [Citing cases.]” In Stephan v.

Michael Bonds v. Milwaukee County, Karen Ordinans, William Hart and Thomas Kuzma

207 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2000

We will reverse the district court’s findings of fact only if we are convinced that those findings are clearly erroneous. See Hudson v. Burke, 913 F.2d 427, 431 (7th Cir.1990). … The policymaking employee exception does not immunize public employer action unconnected to and unmotivated by need for political loyalty. For example, in Marshall v.

United States v. Frias

641 F. App'x 574 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 23, 2016

First he argues that the district court clearly erred by basing its drug-quantity determination on unreliable agent testimony. … Next Frias argues that the government did not establish relevant conduct because it failed to show temporal proximity or regularity of drug sales.

United States v. Nathan W. Shavin

287 F.2d 647 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 13, 1961

O’Kane, which letter was to be sent and delivered by the Post Office Establishment of the United States. … It was qualified under the “Shop Book Rule,” § 1732, Title 28 U.S.C. The Government, on the same basis, introduced into evidence other documents from the same file.

Bellino, Joseph M. v. Peters, Mary E.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 19, 2008

On appeal, however, it’s unnecessary to pass on whether Bellino was a “qualified individual with a disability.” … But Bellino cannot establish his prima facie case be- cause he has not pointed to a single similarly situated individual.

Jones v. Basinger

635 F.3d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 31, 2011

Unreasonable Application of Clearly Established Federal Law Jones has met his threshold burden to show a violation of his constitutional rights. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). … Our next step under AEDPA, then, is to determine whether Jones’ right to confront Lewis or Parks was “clearly established” under the circumstances. See Schaff v.

Killingsworth, Linda v. Household Bank

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 9, 2007

The allegations, if true, could establish that an FCRA violation occurred before FACTA’s effective date, and this is enough to survive the motion to dismiss. I. … whether Congress has clearly spoken either way—as Nos. 06-1616 & 06-2178 11 to prospective or retrospective application.

United States v. Shaw

40 F. App'x 266 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 8, 2002

In this case, the district court relied on the testimony of Williams and Collins at sentencing which established that from July 1998 to at least December 2000, Shaw was involved in the acquisition and distribution of amounts … “To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants” in the offense. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2).

Northern Assurance Co. of America v. Summers

17 F.3d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 22, 1994

(not only because he obviously would not qualify but also because she assumed he was under his father’s coverage). … Connie listed “none” in response to the question asking for “Accidents, Convictions & Losses.” 4 This was clearly a false answer, given that an accident had occurred only two days earlier.

Charles Broadus v. John D. Beatty, Sheriff of Howard County, Indiana

52 F.3d 328 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 18, 1995

inmates, that sleeping quarters were overcrowded, that there was no privacy for the taking of showers, that there were inadequate procedures and equipment in place in the event of a fire or emergency, that the jail lacked qualified … The district court's finding was not clearly erroneous

Donald Minniecheske v. Timothy L. Vocke

918 F.2d 180 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 19, 1990

immunity or, in the alternative, that the doctrine of qualified immunity cloaks him from civil liability since he acted in good faith and with a reasonable belief in the validity of the search warrant. 55 To prevail on a … ; (3) the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and (4) the facts do not support plaintiffs' assertions.

Rollins v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

863 F.2d 1346 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 19, 1988

The parties' briefs never clearly articulated which body of law determines the constructive trust issue. … SGLIA established an order for policy beneficiaries.

Hiatt v. United States

4 F.2d 374 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 18, 1924

“To provide for the establishment of Federal Reserve Banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford moans of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and … We are of opinion that Congress was clearly within its constitutional rights in authorizing the admission of state banks and trust companies to the privileges and benefits of member banks in the Federal Reserve System. 6.

Devex Corporation v. General Motors Corporation

321 F.2d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 4, 1963

The fact that Claim 4 distinguishes from thirty-one references in a mature art, none of which anticipate, quite clearly establishes that the claim is not too broad and indefinite. … There exists a well established rule that to invalidate a patent on the ground of public use, the prior public use must be established by clear and convincing proof. In Smith v.

Lunini, Joseph A. v. Grayeb, Charles V.

184 F. App'x 559 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 12, 2006

We reversed the district court’s decision, finding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the equal protection rights that Lunini alleged were violated were not clearly established at the … To establish a constitutional violation, Lunini had to establish 1) that he was seized; and 2) that the seizure was unreasonable. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001); White v.