Case law

United States v. Dalhover

96 F.2d 355 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 16, 1938

At'Baltimore and Bangor the bandits were merely trying to escape arrest for the robbery and murder, and what they did at that time and what they had with them was clearly admissible not only as (bearing upon their guilt of … It was not properly qualified as a dying declaration, and should not have been admitted.

United States v. Charles J. Schwarz, and Fremont C. Woller

460 F.2d 1365 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 19, 1972

in this ease, the briefs filed by all parties and the oral argument had on this appeal, we find and conclude that the facts as found by the district court are amply supported by the evidence and may not be set aside as clearly … It has long been established that Indian reservation land is not public land. Leavenworth, etc., R.R. Co. v. United States, 92 U.S. 733, 746-747 , 23 L.Ed. 634 (1875); Minnesota v.

John Doe, Cross-Appellants v. United States of America, Cross-Appellee

976 F.2d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 1993

This outdated conception clearly is untenable today. See, e.g. Bullard v. … The district court’s statements indicate that, had the plaintiffs more clearly established some sort of link between the children’s behavior and the abuse, the damages awards would have been greater.

Delvin C. Payton v. County of Carroll

473 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

Under Landgraf , the court first looks to see whether the legislature clearly indicated what the temporal reach of the new law should be. … No plaintiffs claim could be, or is, typical of so broad a class as plaintiffs seek to establish.

Griffin, Lisa v. Foley, Robert K.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 4, 2008

The fact that other methods existed or that another orthopaedic surgeon would have used a different treat- ment does not establish malpractice. … No. 07-2689 27 many instances Lieberson’s opinions were much more detailed and clearly explained.

United States v. Hankton, Clarence

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 29, 2005

Martinez, 289 F.3d 1023, 1028-29 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that reliability may be established by corroborating evidence). … [t]he telephone calls clearly establish that . . . . [t]hey show his concern for the organization itself, its image.”

United States v. John Wysinger

683 F.3d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2012

The agent thus continued to draw a distinction between “questioning” and “advice,” both of which qualify as interrogation under well-established standards when the “advice” is likely to elicit an incriminating response. … The government asserts that, even absent the video, the evidence at trial establishing Wysinger’s guilt was “overwhelming.”

G. Leblanc Corporation v. H. & A. Selmer, Inc., G. Leblanc Corporation v. H. & A. Selmer, Inc.

310 F.2d 449 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 17, 1962

We cannot say that the foregoing finding is clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. … We cannot say they are clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A.

Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium Inc.

657 F.3d 650 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 23, 2011

Belaruskali was initially named as a defendant, but because it is owned by the Republic of Belarus, it was dismissed from the suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1604 et seq. … statutory text clearly says so: If the Legislature clearly states that a threshold limita- tion on a statute’s scope shall count as jurisdictional, then courts and litigants will be duly instructed and will

State of Wisconsin, and County of Marquette, Michigan, Intervening v. Caspar W. Weinberger, Individually and as Secretary of the Department of Defense

745 F.2d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 21, 1984

Although NEPA establishes “significant substantive goals for the Nation,” Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. … In Hill , the competing interests—the proposed dam and the snail darter habitat—were clearly defined.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner-Appellee, v. A.E. STALEY MANUFACTURING CO., Respondent-Appellant

711 F.2d 780 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 1, 1983

That holding is contrary to well-established law. … As such, the district court determination, based on the testimony before it, that the effective date of the Act was not pro forma inserted in this case is not clearly erroneous.

Yetman, Bert M. v. FAA

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2001

Studies have clearly demonstrated CogScreen-AE’s sensitivity and specificity as a tool for assessing brain dysfunction and for detecting early stages of cognitive pathology. … /3 To qualify as a commuter plane, the airplane had to have a passenger-seating configurations of 30 seats or less and 7,500 pounds or less payload capacity.

American Grain Trimmers, Inc., and Frank Gates-Acclaim v. Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, and Marian Janich

181 F.3d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 21, 1999

Carroll, who qualified his opinion about the cause of Mr. Janich’s death so much that the ALJ concluded it was insufficient to rebut the presumption. For example, while Dr. Carroll testified that Mr. … The defendant employer then has the burden of producing evidence that the adverse action was taken for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, by “ ‘clearly setfting] forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence

United States v. Howard (Ted) Furkin

119 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 14, 1997

The Government clearly met its burden of proving the three elements under § 371 as to Lanzotti. … As noted supra, Furkin committed eight of the nine types of listed conduct that qualify for the obstruction of justice enhancement.

Parrott v. Astrue

493 F. App'x 801 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2012

He also compares the identified skills to those abilities the Second Circuit has concluded do not qualify, for example, “the ability to change easily and frequently from one activity to another.” See Draegert v. … The government responds that the vocational expert was clearly talking about advanced communication skills developed over time rather than the standard ability to speak and listen.

United States v. Thomas P. Gillespie, Jr.

974 F.2d 796 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 28, 1992

We are faced, then, with “the violation of a policy which does not justify a case-related judicial sanction and yet which appears immune to expressions of judicial dissatisfaction.” Pacheco-Ortiz, 889 F.2d at 310-11 . … It is well established that witnesses appearing before the grand jury enjoy the protection of the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Counselman v.

20 Employee Benefits Cas. 2543, Pens. Plan Guide P 23930x Gail Swaback, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of David Swaback, Deceased v. American Information Technologies Corporation, Illinois Bell Company, Ameritech Employees Benefit Committee

103 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 20, 1996

Swaback did not meet the requirements for a lump sum distribution because he was not on the active payroll, and the SPD clearly states, in writing, that employees may not elect lump sum pensions directly from SADP status. … Swaback qualified to receive payments due to his inability to work by reason of sickness.

Gary Betts v. Boone County, Illinois

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 15, 2026

Rather, the Court “declined to af- ford qualified immunity to a municipality despite the good faith of its individual officers.” Capra v. Cook Cnty. … Holding municipalities immune from liability whenever their final policymakers disregard their own written policies would serve to encourage city leaders to flout such rules. . . .

United States v. Lloyd Lockwood

789 F.3d 773 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 16, 2015

Lockwood’s attorney then acknowl- edged that: [The prosecutor] did a very pretty job of arranging all of the other elements for you and showing you that those elements have already been established; and … A pipe bomb qualifies as a firearm within the meaning of the statute.

Harold E. MacDonald and Marian B. MacDonald v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

230 F.2d 534 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 13, 1956

We assume what we think is clearly shown, that is, that the monetary sacrifice sustained by taxpayer in changing his employment was substantial. … On the other hand, the Commissioner offered a witness who appears to have been qualified to testify as an expert.