Case law

United Natural Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 414

58 F.4th 927 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2023

On December 12, 2019, Local 414 and its members went on strike and established a picket line at the Fort Wayne distri- bution center. … The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has established four principles that guide our analysis. AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648, 106 S. Ct. 1415, 1418 (1986).

United States v. Whited, Matthew

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2008

Whited concedes that the sexual encounter he and Will were contemplating would qualify as a “thing of value.” … The dis- trict court did not clearly err in finding that Whited distributed child pornography in reasonable anticipation of obtaining sex from Will.

Robert E. Pincus v. Pabst Brewing Company, a Delaware Corporation

893 F.2d 1544 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 5, 1990

The finder of fact is to determine whether apparent agency has been established. Iowa Nat’l Mutual Ins. Co. v. Backens, 51 Wis.2d 26 , 186 N.W.2d 196, 200 (1971). … Pabst argues, however, that the notes do not qualify as business records of “unusual reliability” entitled to be directly relied on as such by the jury.

Boone County Utiliti v. Branham Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 22, 2007

Generally speaking, courts have set out a number of requirements for a document to qualify as an informal proof of claim. … No. 06-3673 7 Proof of claim 16 is clearly untimely.

Shuang Dai v. Merrick B. Garland

24 F.4th 628 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 24, 2022

However, the BIA clearly affirmed the IJ’s opinion without an opin- ion of its own. See id. at 3. … Consequently, the operative agency decision is that of the IJ. 10 No. 21-1315 The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that she qualifies for asylum

Ali, Ahmed v. Achim, Deborah

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 6, 2006

An interpretation that requires the Attorney General and his agents to sift through each state’s code and prospec- tively identify by regulation every single crime that would qualify as “particularly serious” would impose … But the absence of a similar provision for nonaggravated-felony crimes does not imply that only aggravated felonies can qualify as “particularly serious” crimes.

James Walters v. Professional Labor Group, LLC

120 F.4th 546 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2024

Travel away from home is clearly worktime when it cuts across the employee’s workday. The em- ployee is simply substituting travel for other duties. … In [its] experience, a review of employees’ time records usually re- veals work patterns sufficient to establish regular work hours.”).

United States v. Jesse Byrd, Jr.

771 F.2d 215 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 19, 1985

It suggested but did not clearly describe an embezzlement. … Byrd also points to the facts that Carlton received immunity from prosecution and that she is apparently under no compulsion to pay back to the bank the $1,500 she received from Byrd for her part in the scheme.

Kenneth ORLANDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee

776 F.2d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 5, 1985

judge determined that Orlando’s IQ test scores, “indicate that the claimant would have some difficulty processing verbal and numerical data but he could perform simple unskilled tasks and his mental and emotional problems clearly … Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the administrative law judge’s finding that Orlando failed to establish a “marked restriction of daily activities and constriction of interest and seriously impaired

National Labor Relations Board v. Colonial Haven Nursing Home, Inc.

542 F.2d 691 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 22, 1976

The record does establish that the employees accepted Potterton’s representations. … Although the document clearly qualifies as an answering brief under 29 C.F.R. §§ 102.45 (b), 102.46(b), (c), (d), and (j), and 102.48(b) and (c), it is difficult to characterize the document as one complying with 29 C.F.R

Bell, Theodore v. Pierson, Mark A.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 10, 2001

As the Supreme Court has explained, a state court decision is "contrary to" clearly established Supreme Court precedent "if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases … If the case falls under the "contrary to" clause of sec. 2254(d)(1), then we review the state court decision de novo to decide what is clearly established law as determined by the Supreme Court and whether the state court

Jose Cisneros v. Loretta Lynch

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2016

This  is  a  regulation  formally  promulgated  through  statutory authority, and so it qualifies for Chevron deference.  … United  States,  495  U.S.  575  (1990)  (establishing  a  categorical  approach  to  classify  state  crimes);  Shepard  v. 

Gould, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations

750 F.2d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 13, 1984

Wisconsin’s doing so significantly interferes with the mechanisms the NLRA has established for encouraging compliance so that they preempt the Wisconsin legislation. … The district court dismissed the three defendant state agencies as immune from action under the Eleventh Amendment. That ruling is not at issue. 2 .

Alto Dairy v. Veneman, Ann

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 15, 2003

If it does sell 30 percent there, however, its entire output, not just the 30 percent, qualifies for the region’s blended price. … This provision, as the Court remarked in Darby, “by its very terms, has limited the availability of the doctrine of ex- haustion of administrative remedies to that which the statute or rule clearly mandates.” 509 U.S. at

Nocula v. UGS CORP.

520 F.3d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2008

It is well established that a shareholder generally cannot sue to enforce the rights of the corporation. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. … The decision of a foreign sovereign to exercise its police power through the enforcement of its criminal laws plainly qualifies as an act of state.

Arnold v. Dittmann

901 F.3d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 24, 2018

Because Arnold had previously been convicted of a serious child sex offense (two counts of second degree sexual assault of a child), Arnold qualified as a "persistent repeater" under Wis. … There is no dispute that Arnold filed his habeas petition beyond section 2244(d)(1) 's one-year time limit, so his petition is barred as untimely unless he can establish that he qualifies for an exception to the time limit

Mary Scanlan v. Marshall Eisenberg

669 F.3d 838 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 20, 2012

“Mere speculation is not enough to establish an injury in fact.” Id. … Clearly then, Comment b provides that a beneficiary of a discretionary trust whose rights are “adversely af- fected” has standing to enforce the trust.

Gibson v. The City Of Chicago

910 F.2d 1510 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 23, 1990

Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936 , 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753 , 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982)), but seemingly qualifying this statement by adding that "[i]t is firmly established that a defendant in a Sec. 1983 suit acts under color … county personnel and the presence of other qualified rescuers); White v.

Meixiang Cui v. Merrick B. Garland

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 21, 2023

. § 208.13(b)(1). 3 The applicant bears the burden of establishing that she is a qualifying refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). … Thus, Cui has not met her burden to establish eli- gibility for asylum.

James T. Foster v. James M. Schomig, Cross-Appellee

223 F.3d 626 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 24, 2000

Because the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision was not contrary to clearly established law, we reverse the district court in part and affirm in part. I. … Because Foster has not shown that his conviction or sentence was contrary to clearly established law or was an unreasonable application of law as set out in Strickland , he cannot prevail.