Case law

Rhonda Ezell v. City of Chicago

651 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 6, 2011

To be appropriately respectful of the individual rights at issue in this case, the City bears the burden of establishing a strong public-interest justification for its ban on range training: The City must establish a close … Chicago, 26 J.L. & Pol. 273 , 285-87 (2011); Josh Blackman & Ilya Shapiro, Keeping Pandora’s Box Sealed: Pnvileges or Immunities, The Constitution in 2020, and Properly Extending the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the States

Northlake Community Hospital v. United States

654 F.2d 1234 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 1981

And some decision by the Secretary is clearly required by the statute.” Id. at 329 , 96 S.Ct. at 900 . … These facts establish that Northlake had more than adequate notice of the deficiencies which caused the termination of its provider agreement.

Tonca Watters v. Homeowners Association at the

48 F.4th 779 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2022

Thus, Walton not only carries no precedential weight but is also clearly distinguishable. … In fact, the dissent omits a key qualifier when quoting Lin- kletter that highlights the flexibility of causation in these claims: “Section 3617 requires a nexus with the rights protected by §§ 3603-06, without re- quiring

Elliott Levin v. William Miller

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.

Elliott Levin v. William Miller

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.

Metropolitan School District of Wayne Township v. Davila

969 F.2d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 30, 1992

In order to qualify for funds, a state must establish a policy assuring a free appropriate education (“FAPE”) to all disabled children. 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (1). … The “definition clearly harmonizes with the language and purpose of ... the Clean Air Act ... and does not create any new law, rights or duties.” Id. (quotations omitted).

Aleksey Ruderman v. Matthew G. Whitaker

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2019

  § 940.10(1); he argues that Congress did not intend for crimi‐ No. 17‐1689  9  nal negligence like his to qualify as particularly serious.  … And Ruderman fails to establish the latter. 

Harman v. Harman

70 F. 894 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 6, 1895

written contract cannot be permitted, either at law or equity, to vary, qualify, or contradict, or add to, or subtract from, the absolute terms of the written contract. … established.

Aleksey Ruderman v. Matthew G. Whitaker

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2019

  § 940.10(1); he argues that Congress did not intend for crimi‐ No. 17‐1689  9  nal negligence like his to qualify as particularly serious.  … And Ruderman fails to establish the latter. 

Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Incorporated v. City Of Milwaukee

300 F.3d 775 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 2002

The courts to have considered the issue have held that the ADA clearly encompasses zoning decisions by local government entities. Regional Econ. Comty. Action Program, Inc. v. … Furthermore, as with the FHAA, under the ADA, a public entity must reasonably accommodate a qualified individual with a disability by making changes in rules, policies, practices, or services when needed. Dadian v.

United States v. Vitek Supply Corporation and Jannes Doppenberg

144 F.3d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 1998

argument that the district court gave undue emphasis to the expert’s qualifications, it is true that the court misspoke when it stated that one of the “nonexclusive guideposts” set forth in Daubert is whether the expert is qualified … Because we do nol find this conclusion clearly erroneous, we do not further discuss the circumstantial evidence.

United States v. Walker, Thomas

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 9, 2001

This determination was not clearly erroneous. 3. … But that rule does not help Walker here; it would only apply if he wanted the notes admitted to "explain or qualify the portion offered by the opponent" regarding the license plate number. See United States v.

Matt Dinerstein v. Google, LLC

73 F.4th 502 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 11, 2023

The doctrine’s elements are well established and familiar. … After all, contracts simply establish legal rights.

United States of America, (Appellee) v. William B. England, Also Known as William Benjamin England, Defendant(appellant). United States of America, (Appellee) v. William Bernard England, Also Known as William B. England, Jr., Defendant(appellant)

347 F.2d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 7, 1965

Court since the earliest days of this Republic. 14 36 With this distinction in mind, it is clearly apparent that the Jonikas case is distinguishable from the case at hand. … Moreover, had it been agents of the F.B.I., rather than those of the I.R.S., who conducted the investigation, surely the result of that investigation would not receive the immunity from review that such a finding is said

Rosemary Frobose v. American Savings and Loan Association of Danville, a State Chartered Federally Insured Savings and Loan

152 F.3d 602 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 31, 1998

Such a benefit, though not a contractual right of employment, may qualify as a “privilegie]” of employment under Title VII. … Section 1831j, of course, requires the defendant to so establish by clear and convincing evidence, rather than a preponderance.

United States v. Robert H. Schmidt and Lawrence B. Schmidt

47 F.3d 188 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 1, 1995

Obviously a waiver will be upheld only if the record clearly demonstrates that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement. Id. … Thus, their education, experience in the business world, and representation by highly qualified counsel makes it all the more evident that their respective waivers of their individual right to appeal were knowingly and voluntarily

Gen'l Auto Service v. City of Chicago

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 16, 2008

of Cook County seeking judicial review of the ZBA’s decision, arguing in part that the ZBA had overlooked the fact that no permit had been required when the sign was first erected in 1962 and that, consequently, the sign qualified … But that doesn’t mean that it acquired an immunity from all zoning regulation.

Wisconsin Right to Life State Political Action Committee v. Barland

664 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 12, 2011

of influencing the recall from or retention in office of an individual holding a state or local office,” including the “making of a communication which expressly advocates the election, defeat, recall or retention of a clearly … If that’s true, the committee would not qualify for the free-speech safe harbor for independent expenditures; the First Amendment permits the government to regulate coordinated expendi- tures. Colo.

Larry McCall Cross-Appellant v. Gayle Franzen, Cross-Appellees

777 F.2d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 13, 1985

This qualified statement is not an explicit holding that a violation occurred. … The district court noted that the punishment imposed on McCall-Bey exceeded the máximums for a violation of DR-403 established by DOC regulations, but it is not clear why this fact, standing alone, establishes that the defendants

United States Steel Corp. v. Train

556 F.2d 822 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 13, 1977

Nor can we review unspecified “clearly erroneous findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the deprivation of Petitioner’s right to due process of law.” … We do not take these clearly unfair permit conditions as lightly as it appears the agency itself does.