Case law

Diego Gaines v. K-Five Construction Corporatio

742 F.3d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 3, 2014

To establish a violation of § 31105(a), Gaines must present evidence this warning contributed to K-Five’s termination decision. … But more impor- tantly, the DDR forms very clearly and prominently place the hours worked information at the top of the page.

United States v. Anthony Fletcher

634 F.3d 395 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 10, 2011

Recognizing a mistake-of-age defense would clearly be at odds with this compelling government objective. … United States, 444 U.S. 248 (1980) (per curiam) (describing “firmly established policy” forbidding U.S.

Ryan Crews v. City Mt Vernon IL

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2009

If Crews’s claim is governed exclusively by § 4316(b)(1), which requires only equal benefits for Guard and non-Guard employees, then Crews clearly has no right to special scheduling flexibility. … Unlike the conduct prohib- ited by the anti-discrimination provision, which must affect an employee’s conditions of “employment,” the conduct reached by the anti-retaliation provision is not qualified in terms of employment

Sotir Libarov v. ICE

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 27, 2025

The court’s conclusion about exemption 7(A) was not clearly erroneous. … The district court did not clearly err when it concluded that dis- closure of records like this one “would generally ‘interfere with enforcement proceedings.’”

Jordan v. Hepp

831 F.3d 837 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2016

Where the state court has made a decision on the merits, we may grant relief only if that decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law” as determined by the Supreme … The Supreme Court then qualified Godinez in Indiana v.

Nancy Knies v. Internal Revenue Service

9 F.3d 1549 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 9, 1993

LEGAL ANALYSIS 12 This is a lawsuit against the United States. 1 "Since the United States is immune from suit except where Congress has waived its immunity, the suit here can be maintained only if it falls within a statute … waiving sovereign immunity."

Jerry Wilson v. Dan Cromwell

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2023

See, e.g., Lee, 750 F.3d at 693 (holding that the Allen rule “clearly served as an inde- pendent basis for the court’s denial of [petitioner’s] motion”); Triplett v. … We further hold that Wallace’s testimony does not suffi- ciently establish Wilson’s actual innocence.

Wrinkles v. Buss

537 F.3d 804 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 12, 2008

Likewise, the Indiana Supreme Court’s legal conclusions will be upheld unless they resulted in a decision that was “(1) contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined … The court recreated the decision facing Wrinkles’s attorneys in light of the established form of prejudice at the time.

United States v. Joshua R. Mackin

793 F.3d 703 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 13, 2015

The slip he was given was clearly deficient, and it reasonably led him to suspect that the government had not followed the proper chain-of-custody procedures in his case. … As previously described, Mackin stipulated to the fact that he had been convicted of a qualifying felony.

Bavido, Gerald W. v. Apfel, Kenneth

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2000

This statute, he contends, requires governmental agencies to establish a procedure for disclosing records to an individual. … The Privacy Act clearly directs agencies to devise special procedures for disclosure of medical records in cases in which direct transmission could adversely affect a requesting individual.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Jerome Adams

937 F.3d 973 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2019

None of the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous. … It is not clearly erroneous. Indeed, the finding parallels the district court’s finding in Casey that the Supreme Court credited.

Berniece Larimore, Sam M. Taylor, William G. Butcher, and Orville Bottrell v. C.T. Conover, Comptroller of the Currency

775 F.2d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 1, 1985

Consequently, “when courts are confronted with statutes ‘capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed Congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.’ ” FAA Administrator … Dwight Thomas’ declaration of bankruptcy clearly put Butcher on notice to investigate future loans to Thomas; however, no loans were extended to Thomas after the fact of his bankruptcy became known to Butcher and thus the

Tamara Loertscher v. Eloise Anderson

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 18, 2018

The  Ninth  Circuit  ruled  that  the  caseworker  and  prosecutor  had  violated  the  Fourth Amendment, but concluded that they were entitled to  qualified immunity.  … Loertscher has not established that Act 292 prompted her departure  from Wisconsin or that the fear of Act 292’s provisions is preventing her  from returning to Wisconsin.  

Ramsden, Mark A. v. Agribank, FCB

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2000

When a federal court is asked to enjoin state court proceedings, the mere fact that the case falls within one of sec. 2283’s exceptions does not "qualify in any way the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must … Under those circumstances, the Second Circuit did not need to confront the scenario before us, where the state court had not reached final judgment but had clearly adjudicated and expressly rejected the merits of the res

United States of America Ex Rel. Patrick Hampton v. Blair Leibach

347 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 17, 2003

In order to obtain habeas relief under the AEDPA, a petitioner must establish that the proceedings in state court resulted in a decision (1) “that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … of ... clearly established Federal law.’ ” Williams, 529 U.S. at 407-08, 120 S.Ct. at 1520.

Halil Demir v. Markwayne Mullin

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 4, 2026

As another quality control measure, Congress directed the TSA Administrator to “establish a procedure to enable airline passengers, who are delayed or prohibited from boarding a flight because the advanced passenger prescreening … Although Storer mainly discussed whether the petitioner qualified as “aggrieved” under the direct review provision for standing purposes, Investment Co. viewed it as at least degrad- ing D.C.

United States v. Edward Velazquez

772 F.3d 788 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 20, 2014

Achbani, 507 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2007), we established  a bright‐line rule that a defendant in custody may never be  deemed voluntarily absent during sentencing.  … The district court did not clearly err in finding that Ve‐ lazquez was voluntarily absent during sentencing. 

Jerry Wilson v. Dan Cromwell

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2023

See, e.g., Lee, 750 F.3d at 693 (holding that the Allen rule “clearly served as an inde- pendent basis for the court’s denial of [petitioner’s] motion”); Triplett v. … We further hold that Wallace’s testimony does not suffi- ciently establish Wilson’s actual innocence.

Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. United Transportation Union, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Winona Bridge Railway Company

862 F.2d 1266 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 18, 1988

Consequently, according to appellees the transaction is cloaked with a statutory grant of immunity from any laws that interfere with the transaction. … Congress clearly envisioned swift and efficient approval of rail consolidations, mergers and grants such as the type at issue.

Christian Legal v. Walker, James E.

453 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2006

The majority acknowledges this well-established law briefly, ante at 859, but, citing Hurley v. … For example, the reviewing court does not give the normal deference to matters of witness credibility, nor does the usual “clearly erroneous” standard of review cabin the examination of the facts. Id.