Case law

Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Stroh Die Casting Co.

116 F.3d 814 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 17, 1997

Under Gwaltney , Stroh simply does not qualify as an “ongoing violator.” 2 IV. … This court clearly recognized this in Citizens for a Better Environment v. Steel Co., 90 F.3d 1237 (7th Cir.1996).

United States v. Johnson, Bobby D.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2003

Self- incriminating statements such as Johnson’s, which was clearly against his penal interest, “have long been consid- ered reliable enough for use at trial . . . , so we cannot say that they are too unreliable for use at … “It is well-established that simply a prepon- derance of the evidence is all that is required for a factual finding under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v.

Diamond Shamrock Corporation v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company

466 F.2d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 16, 1972

The use of such summaries where documents and records are voluminous is well established. … That places the business interruption summaries clearly within the ambit of our decision in In re Shelley Furniture, Inc., 283 F.2d 540 (7th Cir. 1960).

Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County

919 F.2d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 30, 1990

Since the office of the State’s Attorney is an actual party to the lawsuit, the State’s Attorney is clearly “interested in the proceedings” within the meaning of § 6. … Congress has established that appeal is permissible only on entry of a final judgment.

Phyllis MERRIWEATHER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF INDIANA, INC. Defendant-Appellant

103 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 26, 1996

Waak testified that Merriweather was qualified for the floor supervisor position, and that he considered Merriweather a satisfactory employee who presented no problems on the sales floor or in dealing with customers. … Because the finding is not clearly erroneous, we refuse to second-guess the trial court on appeal.

Isaiah Brady v. Randy Pfister

711 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 1, 2013

established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.” … On the other hand, if it is the claim as a whole that qualifies (or not) for treatment under Section 2254(d)(1), then the standard of review would remain consistent for both elements.

Procopio v. Johnson

994 F.2d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 6, 1993

Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and [federal] laws." 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . … Though the Procopios do not clearly differentiate their contention that they can sue directly under the AACWA through section 1983 from their contention that the AACWA serves as a source for the Procopios' liberty interest

Shaffer v. AMERICAN MEDICAL ASS'N

662 F.3d 439 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 18, 2011

The American Medical Associa- tion was not immune to the downturn in the economy. Budget cuts mandated that some employees lose their jobs, including at least one in the department where William Shaffer worked. … Notably, Lynch clearly knew on November 21, the date he placed on the memorandum at issue, that Shaffer had already requested leave since Shaffer had sent him an email requesting it the previous day.

Theatre Corporation v. Loew's Incorporated

355 F.2d 495 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 17, 1966

concept was a plan devised by RKO Theatres under which RKO would license a film for first outlying run to any theatre submitting a bid for a particular picture above a stated minimum, except that when two qualified bids … The findings of fact, either directly from the uncontradicted evidence adduced, or inferentially from circumstances, or upon conflicting evidence, may not be set aside unless we are convinced that they are clearly erroneous

United States v. Noe Mancillas

183 F.3d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 9, 1999

Section 3E1.1 provides: “If the. defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense, decrease the offense level by 2 levels.” … In order to qualify for a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, a defendant must: (1) demonstrate that he clearly recognizes and affirmatively accepts responsibility for his conduct; (2) timely notify authorities

United States v. Jesus Zambrana, Sr., Charles Cole and Jay Zambrana

841 F.2d 1320 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 7, 1988

A case decided two years ago clearly illustrates the need to maintain the confidentiality of government informants. In Ellsworth v. … Over the defendants’ objections, the district court qualified her as an expert in the translation of English to Spanish and Spanish to English.

Melissa Thornley v. Clearview AI, Inc.

984 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2021

In order to use the machines, a patron had to establish an account using her fingerprint. … If the latter qualifies as an invasion of a ‘pri- vate domain, much like an act of trespass would be,’ Bryant, 958 F.3d at 624, then so does the former.” Id. at 1155.

United States v. Saul Tejeda

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2009

Under immunity, Carlos Olivares testified he was a Latin King from 1989 through 2004. He stated that a Latin Kings enforcer carries out punishments within the gang and ensures gang members have firearms. … The evidence clearly established who was and who wasn’t a gang member and what gang they were affiliated with and the extent of the gang activity that related to the charged conspiracy.

Lachman v. Illinois State Board of Education

852 F.2d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 18, 1988

Clearly, the consultation and procedural requirements of the Act have been met in this case. Careful, impartial consider *293 ation has been given to Benjamin’s individual educational needs. … MSTEP alleged that the complaint did not establish that it owed a duty to appellants. Therefore it claimed not to be a proper party defendant.

United States v. Henricks

886 F.3d 618 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 27, 2018

determine what rights the taxpayer [or in this case, the criminal defendant] has in the property the Government seeks to reach, then to federal law to determine whether the taxpayer's [or defendant's] state-delineated rights qualify … In a previous appeal, we affirmed Henricks's judgment and conviction, holding that the "district court did not clearly err either in finding that Henricks's failure to pay restitution was willful or in resentencing Henricks

Local 65-B, Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board

572 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2009

conclusions of *348 law different from the ALJ’s conclusions, but its decision must still conform with the substantial evidence standard. “[0]n matters which the [ALJ], having heard the evidence and seen the witnesses, is best qualified … to decide, the agency should be reluctant to disturb his findings unless error is clearly shown.”

Elliott Levin v. William Miller

900 F.3d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2018

The record clearly establishes that on the advice of government regula- tors and expert outside legal counsel, the Board had priori- tized saving the banks. … The duty to provide information is not absolute; it is qualified by the duty to obey the Board’s lawful instructions.

Ruderman v. Whitaker

914 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2019

. § 940.10 (1) ; he argues that Congress did not intend for criminal negligence like his to qualify as particularly serious. … And Ruderman fails to establish the latter.

Hysi, Ermand v. Gonzales, Alberto R.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 15, 2005

At the status hearing where the report was received into evidence, the IJ clearly told Hysi’s substitute counsel that a written opinion would be issued unless she heard any- thing further from the parties. … Nor can he establish eligibility for protec- tion under the Convention Against Torture. Ahmed v.

Anthony Hall v. Odie Washington, Director

106 F.3d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 10, 1997

Under the AEDPA, however, we must answer the more subtle question of whether the state court “unreasonably” applied clearly established federal law as the Supreme Court has determined it. Pitsonbarger v. … Applying this standard, we hold that the state court’s finding that Hall’s counsel provided effective assistance at sentencing “involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law” as determined by the