Case law

Chatta, Adeel H. v. Mukasey, Michael B.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2008

The burden is on the applicant to establish that he is a refugee. … He also fails to establish that he would be subject to torture.

In re A Witness before the Special Grand Jury 2000-2

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 24, 2002

It is well established that a client may be either an individual or a corporation. See, e.g., Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 390 (1981). … Compare Nixon, 418 U.S. at 713 (qualified executive privilege applies in the face of a criminal investigation).

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Waste Management Of Wisconsin, Inc.

777 F.2d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 18, 1985

First it found that the circumstances surrounding the choice of the Prosser firm by Fireman's Fund in view of that firm's long professional relationship with that insurer belied any claim that Prosser qualified as independent … American Home, however, is clearly distinguishable from this case because the insurer's reservation of rights in that case did not create a conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured In American Home, the insured

Charles Richardson v. Richard B. Gramley, Warden of Dixon Correctional Center

998 F.2d 463 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 1, 1993

. § 1257 , which establishes the Court’s certiorari jurisdiction over state court judgments, provides: (a) Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed … This contention is clearly without substance. A timely application for certiorari to review the second judgment was made, and the case is properly here.

Mcgeshick v. Choucair

9 F.3d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1993

McGeshick had failed not only to establish who at the clinic was negligent, but also to establish how the alleged negligence affected Mr. … Clearly his testimony does not establish either the Clinic's breach or how this breach caused Mr. McGeshick's injuries. In addition, Dr. Millikan testified on Mr. McGeshick's behalf.

Allan H. Selig v. United States

740 F.2d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 27, 1984

The government attacks the admissibility of these appraisals, claiming that they do not qualify as hearsay exceptions under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). We disagree. … Congress clearly wanted to limit the tax benefits accorded to the sale of a club.

Beard v. Robinson

563 F.2d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 28, 1977

Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 456 F.2d 1339, 1346-47 (2d Cir. 1972) (immunity of state and federal officers). … Since Reed , the court has avoided the problem by applying state statutes of limitations, other than those for common law torts or for statutory actions, that “clearly apply” to civil rights actions. Chambers v.

United States v. Edward D. Boatman

786 F.3d 590 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 15, 2015

In its sentenc- ing memorandum, the government argued that Boatman’s two qualifying predicate convictions for career offender sta- tus, which together involved 0.8 grams of heroin that he sold for $40, were insignificant … Common procedural errors include “failing to calculate (or improperly calculat- ing) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as manda- tory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sen- tence based on clearly

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, Afl-Cio v. Gary Rabine, Individually and D/B/A Rabine Brothers, and G. Rabine & Sons, Inc.

161 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 3, 1998

This reading of the statute is consistent with the immunity from suit under § 301 enjoyed by individual workers, see United Food and Commercial Workers Local 951, AFL-CIO and CLC v. … At most, the management and ownership of the two companies had a good deal in common, but that alone is insufficient to establish alter ego status.

United States v. Raynard McDowell

117 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 24, 1997

Chavarria-Herrara, 15 F.3d at 1035 ; see also Arishi, 54 F.3d at 598-99 (discussing Chavarria-Herrara); Pridgen, 64 F.3d at 149 (“[I]n enacting § 3742 and amending Rule 35(b) in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Congress clearly … Moreover, unlike some “jurisdictional” deadlines, Rule 35(b)’s one-year rule is qualified by the exception for “information or evidence not known by the defendant until one year or more after imposition of the sentence.”

Stanley E. Coutu v. Universities Research Association, Inc.

595 F.2d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 4, 1979

On the contrary, in dismissing Count I Judge McGarr held only that if the contract was not a Davis-Bacon Act contract plaintiff could not recover. 6 Clearly if a contract contains the required wage stipulations, this would … Even if this were the intent of the regulation, since it is not authorized by law it could not qualify as an exception under Section 4 of the Act. 17 *402 Plaintiff must now be permitted to resume discovery (or employ other

United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, and v. The Greyhound Corporation and Greyhound Lines, Inc., And

508 F.2d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 24, 1974

Neither Greyhound’s representations nor the court order was qualified in any way. … Now you agree, then, don’t you, that that paragraph clearly does not refer to the establishment of through-bus schedules which is mentioned in other paragraphs of the injunction? A. Yes, sir.” 14 .

United States v. Plaze E. Anderson, Also Known as Plaze Thomas

303 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 19, 2002

She wanted immunity for herself or Kin-low-Glosson before she would provide details. … That clearly is not an instance of the government attempting to bolster its witness. The remaining transcript citations fare no better.

Alexandre Solomakha v. Safety International, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 5, 2020

Indus., Inc., 454 N.E.2d 197 (Ill. 1983), another case the Alex Parties cite, interprets the relevant section of the Contribution Act, but only as it applies to “insolvent or immune defendant[s].” Id. at 206. … That case does not define the meaning of the rele- vant exception, nor does it resolve whether the obligation of a settling party qualifies.

United States v. Andrew West, Vertis King, and Garland Jeffers

670 F.2d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 22, 1982

Defendants, however, were unable to show that the Government had promised Dunigan immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying against defendants. … Moreover, it was clearly admissible against Mrs. Jeffers as an admission of a party. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(A).

Wood Preserving Corp. v. Department of Treasury

114 F.2d 922 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 20, 1940

Ed. 1365, 117 A.L.R. 429 ) clearly treat the taxable event as “gross income received.” … It does not always follow, however, that interstate commerce is immune from taxation. Western Live Stock v.

Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers and Lake Michigan Federation v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

382 F.3d 743 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 1, 2004

The plaintiffs do not challenge that the second element has been established. … Even though the 2002 Stipulation does not release MMSD from liability for post-Stipulation violations, those post-Stipulation violations are clearly related in origin to the pre-Stipulation violations and have the same factual

Sylvia A. Lipson v. United States

233 F.3d 942 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 7, 2000

The government correctly responded in its brief that the record clearly showed that no such thing occurred. Lip-son was represented by attorney Richard R. Black, of East St. … If true, and if the evidence showed that she had told him at the time she might be interested in cooperating, that might qualify as an adverse effect resulting from the conflict of interest. Compare Paters v.

Rochell Mitchell v. JCG Industries

745 F.3d 837 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2014

But the qualifying phrase “in general” (paraphrased as “generally” in IBP, Inc. v. … But if as we have just ruled the time spent on the identical activity during meal breaks is de minimis (or “minimal” in the Supreme Court’s preferred term), it is even more clearly so when performed at the beginning and end

United States v. Michael J. McNeese and Laura Conwell

901 F.2d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 2, 1990

unnecessary to establish probable cause to search those residences. … It also cautioned the jury on assessing informant testimony and on the credibility of witnesses, including those testifying under a grant of immunity.