Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersca7

9,632 results

1.85s

  • 41 Fair empl.prac.cas. 296, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,304 Beverly J. Ratliff v. City of Milwaukee, Harold A. Breier, Raymond A. Beste, Joseph A. Kalivoda, Edward N. Kondracki, Charles R. Figer, and Edmund Majkowski, Defendants

    795 F.2d 612 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1986

    Though she eventually passed the criminal law exam and was found qualified in firearms skills, she continued to have a great deal of trouble writing reports. … She also stated that he told her that she was unqualified, that others were more qualified and that she should not be at the Academy.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Ross-Tousey v. Neary

    549 F.3d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 17, 2008

    Statutory limits, it claims, are only jurisdictional when Congress “clearly states” that they are jurisdictional. … It was clearly Congress’s intent to eliminate such discretion when it enacted BAPCPA.

    Abrogated on other grounds by Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A., 131 S. Ct. 716 (2011)Cited 72 timesPublished
  • Van Leer Containers, Inc., Petitioner-Cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner

    943 F.2d 786 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 24, 1991

    We found that Van Leer had established a prima facie case of coercion and denied enforcement of the Board's order. … Of these seven, he found that only two employees clearly testified that they read paragraph five of the letter as a threat that if the Union did not win the election it would try to bring the New Orleans employees to Canton

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Spurlino Materials, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

    645 F.3d 870 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 23, 2011

    In May of 2006, Spurlino established a temporary plant near the stadium construction site. … error is clearly Nos. 10-2875 & 10-3049 21 shown.’ ”) (quoting Universal Camera v.

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • United States v. Ettrick Wood Products, Inc.

    916 F.2d 1211 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 19, 1990

    Once it is established that the court’s decision is “final,” Rule 54(b) requires the district court to expressly find that “there is no just reason for delay” and to expressly direct entry of final judgment. Auriemma v. … Directors who manage to inflict injury exceeding the policy limits do not become immune by the greater gravity of their own acts.

    Cited 76 timesPublished
  • International Union, Uaw, And Its Local 449 v. Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.

    782 F.2d 1400 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 3, 1986

    Our precedents clearly establish that only controversies in the former category may be removed from Art. III courts and delegated to legislative courts or administrative agencies for their determination.... … Although I do not quarrel with the holding that a pension contract incorporates ERISA regulations that Congress intended to be immune from contractual waiver, 1 I am unable to conclude from that fact that the annual funding

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • United States v. Kevin O. Depriest and Steve Morrell

    6 F.3d 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 21, 1993

    is not included in establishing the defendant’s offense level •under this guideline. … The controlling standards on this issue are now well-established.

    Cited 129 timesPublished
  • Deluxe Ice Cream Company v. R.C.H. Tool Corp.

    726 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 5, 1984

    While these cases do not delineate any differences between the "transaction of any business" test of the long-arm statute and the minimum contacts test of due process, they do indicate that, to qualify as a transaction of … magistrate concluded that "[t]he mere fact that all or almost all of the corporate stock is owned by one individual does not afford sufficient grounds for disregarding corporate entities unless combined with other facts to clearly

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Mark Richardson v. CTA

    Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 12, 2019

    The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). … In a compliance man- ual, the EEOC stated that while “[b]eing overweight, in and of itself, gen- erally is not an impairment …, severe obesity, which has been defined as body weight more than 100% over the norm, is clearly

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Yuri D. Veprinsky v. Fluor Daniel, Inc.

    87 F.3d 881 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 26, 1996

    In the same way, strict construction of the statutory language is to be avoided when the result would be senseless or clearly at odds with the evident purpose of the statute. Czerkies v. U.S. … Yet, in order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must always offer proof of "a causal link between the protected expression and the adverse action.” Dey v. Colt Constr. & Dev.

    Cited 141 timesPublished
  • United States v. Booker Sewell

    780 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2015

    Sewell points to no evidence, and we find none, to character- ize this finding as clearly erroneous. … Despite Sewell’s arguments to the con- trary, the district court’s finding is not clearly erroneous.

    Cited 50 timesPublished
  • Mark Richardson v. CTA

    Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 12, 2019

    The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). … In a compliance man- ual, the EEOC stated that while “[b]eing overweight, in and of itself, gen- erally is not an impairment …, severe obesity, which has been defined as body weight more than 100% over the norm, is clearly

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Samuel Johnson Trust v. Bayfield County, WI

    Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2008

    First, the authorities cited by the Landowners do not clearly state whether such a release invariably destroys the executory limitation that would attach to the United States’s estate upon reversion of the right-of-way. … A third-party, Stratman, who had conducted ranching operations on the land when it was federally owned, moved to intervene, claiming that the lands should be returned to the federal government because Lesnoi did not qualify

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Domanus v. Locke Lord LLP

    847 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2017

    In addition, we bear in mind that mere association with conspirators is not enough to establish an agreement. Goren, 156 F.3d at 732. … Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49 , 113 S.Ct. 1920 , 123 L.Ed.2d 611 (1993), but it is difficult to show that litigation is so objectively baseless, or so clearly based on knowing and material falsehoods, that the

    Cited 81 timesPublished
  • Grey Direct, Inc. v. Erie Insurance Exchange

    460 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 21, 2006

    Grey decided to hire another firm, CommDirect, a direct-mail advertising production company, to print and mail the travel certificates to qualifying customers. … These circumstances include ... when the policy and the complaint are compared, there clearly was no coverage or potential for coverage.”); U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Battle v. Clark Equipment Co.

    579 F.2d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 29, 1978

    The SUB plan provided for regular weekly benefits payable to any qualified employee laid off during the course of employment. … The Employees’ Failure to Establish a Section 301(a) Claim Against the Company.

    Overruled on other grounds by Maxim B. Rupe, Cross-Appellant v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc., and Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union, Local 279, Cross-Appellee, 679 F.2d 685 (1982)Cited 24 timesPublished
  • United States v. Ohio Valley Company, Inc., in Personam, and M/v John Fitzgerald, Her Engines, Tackle, Appurtenances, Etc., in Rem

    510 F.2d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 10, 1975

    Because of our disposition of Count II, it is unnecessary to decide whether the plaintiff sufficiently established its negligence case. … Yet Congress gave no indication, in passing the Rivers and Harbors Act, that it intended to alter or qualify the 1851 Act [section 183(a)], In the congressional failure to connect these two statutes, we find at least some

    Cited 30 timesPublished
  • United States v. John Walsh

    723 F.3d 802 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2013

    This finding is not clearly erroneous. … The defen- dants do not contend that a company which provides futures trading services fails to qualify as a “futures commission merchant.”

    Cited 25 timesPublished
  • Estate of Burton W. Kanter, Deceased, Joshua S. Kanter, and Naomi Kanter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

    337 F.3d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 24, 2003

    Facts The Bea Ritch Trusts (BRT) are a group of twenty-five trusts established in 1969 under one trust document. … Comm’r, 114 T.C. 333 , 2000 WL 626760 (2000), asserted in their original petitions that they qualified for innocent-spouse relief. Id. at 338. In King v.

    Reversed on other grounds by Ballard v. Commissioner, 544 U.S. 40 (2005)Cited 22 timesPublished
  • Donald A. Horwitz and Wesco Products Company v. Alloy Automotive Company, Sheldon Gray and Avrum Gray

    957 F.2d 1431 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 19, 1992

    It was clearly not the intention of the defendants to abandon their counterclaim which was not otherwise in jeopardy. II. … The counterclaim in this case clearly is not settled, only on hold. That alone is enough to defeat our jurisdiction. VII.

    Cited 60 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.