Case law

Iona E. Johnson v. Indopco, Incorporated, a New York Corporation

79 F.3d 1150 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 19, 1996

However, in June 1994, in response to Indopco's discovery requests, plaintiff produced twenty three documents, many of which were clearly marked "confidential," that she had been ordered to destroy but had surreptitiously … To do so for a claim based upon a failure to promote, where there is no direct evidence of discrimination, a plaintiff must present evidence that she (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) that she was qualified for the

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.

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.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Doyle

162 F.3d 463 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 3, 1998

This process is clearly distinguishable from the D & X. … , this finding was not clearly erroneous.

Napleton v. General Motors Corp.

138 F.3d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 1998

Under the established preexisting meaning of § 1291, we would have to be able to conclude that a dismissal of an action without prejudice is somehow non-final or interlocutory before we would even reach the question whether … Without any warrant in the statute, the majority’s decision to qualify § 16 with the “imbedded” or “independent” distinction has muddied the waters considerably.

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.

Larry Winsett v. Odie Washington, Warden of Dixon Correctional Center

130 F.3d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 18, 1997

A rule excluding the fruits of a Miranda violation does not qualify for this second Teague exception because it lacks the necessary connection to the fairness and accuracy of a trial. … Finally, as the district court noted, Winsett was not prejudiced by the refusal to appoint counsel after all briefs were submitted to the court; the well-reasoned opinions from the Illinois courts clearly elaborated the competing

City of Chicago v. William P. Barr

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 30, 2020

Our reasoning in Chicago I established Chicago’s entitle- ment to relief on the merits, not merely a likelihood of success. … Notably, the Attorney General has never tried to establish that the grant awards are not interdependent.

John P. Miksis v. Henry L. Howard and Schneider National Carriers, Inc.

106 F.3d 754 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 10, 1997

erroneous factual findings; or (4) the decision clearly appears arbitrary.” … Pueschel, is inadequate to support the exhibit because she is also not qualified to opine as to medical care. Additionally, defendants argue that Dr. Ito’s testimony does not in fact support the exhibits.

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Platt

314 F.2d 369 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 27, 1963

In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors … Washington, 369 U.S. 541, 557 , 82 S.Ct. 955, 964 , 8 L.Ed.2d 98 , the Supreme Court, having before it the voir dire examination at the trial of the defendant, said: 23 "A study of the voir dire indicates clearly that each

J.K.J. v. Polk County, Wisconsin

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 15, 2020

Eiser testified PREA “set[s] the standard for jails very clearly.” Ac- cording to Eiser, the PREA standard has three components: prevention, detection, and training. … Peters, 256 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2001) (reversed jury verdict for incarcerated prisoner on qualified immunity grounds).

Harper, Ron v. City Chicago Heights

223 F.3d 593 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2000

Not everyone would agree, but we find the court’s conclusion to be within the range of permissible inferences from this evidence, and hence not clearly erroneous. … Once a plaintiff qualifies for a fee award by meeting this threshold, "the degree of the plaintiff’s overall success goes to the reasonableness of the award . . ., not to the availability of a fee award vel non."

Miller, Louis v. American Airlines

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 5, 2008

The new provision, Supplement U, provides that: In the event a surplus of flight engineers exists, each flight engineer so affected, who is qualified or train- No. 07-1518 … Primedia Special Interest Publ’ns., 217 F.3d 522, 525 (7th Cir. 2000) (“To succeed in an ADEA claim, a plaintiff must establish that he would not have received adverse treatment but for his employer’s motive to discriminate

Lloyd Bryant, Desmond Butler, Doris Byrd v. City of Chicago

200 F.3d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2000

He was obviously qualified for this committee assignment. One of the recommendations of the May- or’s Committee was that outside consultants be retained to develop and to administer promotion examinations. … Because this is a factual finding, we will affirm the decision of the district court unless it is clearly erroneous. Gillespie, 771 F.2d at 1042 .

National Lead Company v. Federal Trade Commission, the Sherwin-Williams Company v. Federal Trade Commission, the Eagle-Picher Company v. Federal Trade Commission, Anaconda Copper Mining Company v. Federal Trade Commission

227 F.2d 825 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 1, 1955

Each producer established its own practices as to prices and conditions of sale. … Gratz, 253 U.S. 421, 424 , 40 S.Ct. 572 , 64 L.Ed. 993 . 85 Clearly, the Commission was concerned here with enforcement of its order prohibiting concerted action.

J.K.J. v. Polk County, Wisconsin

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 15, 2020

Eiser testified PREA “set[s] the standard for jails very clearly.” Ac- cording to Eiser, the PREA standard has three components: prevention, detection, and training. … Peters, 256 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2001) (reversed jury verdict for incarcerated prisoner on qualified immunity grounds).

United States v. Kroledge, Charles M.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2000

The FBI contacted Martha, and the agency granted Martha and Gilbert immunity from prosecution in exchange for their cooperation in the investigation of the fire. … Contrasting these cases with the facts of Kikumura, we find that this does not qualify as a rare instance where a higher standard might be justified. 2.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,993 Dynamics Corporation of America, a New York Corporation v. Cts Corporation, an Indiana Corporation

805 F.2d 705 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 3, 1986

It is true that the board obtained the opinion of a qualified financial expert (other than Smith Barney) that the 28 percent trigger was proper, but the opinion was offered as a conclusion; its basis was not explained. … King, 792 F.2d 602, 604-06 (7th Cir.1986)), so we must uphold it unless it is clearly erroneous.

Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor v. Loran W. Robbins, and Allen M. Dorfman

752 F.2d 1170 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 3, 1985

See 16 Wright, Miller, Cooper & Gressman, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 3924, at pp. 67-69 (1977); id., 1983 Pocket Part, Sec. 3924 (1984). 3 But this principle is qualified in an important line of cases led by Switzerland … not the settlement agreement tries to confer such an immunity.

Luis Albert Alicea v. John R. Gagnon, Superintendent, and the Attorney General of Wisconsin

675 F.2d 913 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 14, 1982

Recognizing the Michigan Legislature’s power to restrict a defendant’s right to testify, the court was unwilling to qualify that right absent an unambiguous legislative command to do so. … The unmistakable significance of these post-Rider developments clearly undercuts the precedential value of Rider. Hence, we decline to follow the Tenth Circuit’s holding.