Case law

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. 

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

Xiao Liang v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 24, 2010

Clearly, “isolated incidents” in 2002 and “sporadic reports” in 2007 hardly support an allegation of changed conditions—instead they indicate that conditions have remained largely the same. … Here, by contrast, the Board acknowledged that “a showing of extreme economic deprivation may qualify as persecution,” Board’s Decision at 4, but noted that Liang had failed to make a prima facie showing that she would be

Anthony Porter v. Richard B. Gramley, Warden, Pontiac Correctional Center

112 F.3d 1308 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 17, 1997

established federal law, which means that “a responsible, thoughtful answer reached after a full opportunity to litigate is adequate to support the judgment.” … Court went on to say that “[o]ne may not know or altogether understand the imponderables which cause one to think what he thinks, but surely one who is trying as an honest man to live up to the sanctity of his oath is well qualified

United States v. Leslie J. Webster

125 F.3d 1024 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 9, 1997

The district court did not clearly err in imposing a two-level enhancement pursuant to § 2F1.1(b)(3)(B) for violation of judicial process. *179 E. … The Code establishes that "it is the trustee alone who has the power to avoid preferential transfers.” Id. ¶ 547.10 at 547-93.

United States v. Kamal Patel

778 F.3d 607 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 10, 2015

To qualify for Medicare-reimbursed home health care services, a patient must be homebound and suffer from a medical condition or constellation of medical conditions that requires skilled nursing care or therapeutic services … First, no part of this expanded definition clearly encompasses Patel’s actions in this case; rather, they mostly have to do with recommending that a patient see a particular provider.

Dan T. Slaughter & Associates, Incorporated, Clay T. Slaughter, and Florence Slaughter v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

991 F.2d 799 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 1, 1993

This finding is clearly erroneous, given that the letter contains a stamp that says the letter was mailed on April 6. … The United States and its agencies are generally immune from damage liability unless their immunity is expressly waived. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980).

United States v. Kelly Isley

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2023

The district court did not clearly err in including Lithocraft loans #2 and #3 in the loss amount. … The Government must establish the restitution amount by a preponderance of the evidence. See Robl, 8 F.4th at 527.

United States v. Franzen

688 F.2d 1181 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 24, 1982

As the majority concedes, the transcript of the conference demonstrates that defense counsel initially and quite clearly requested a straight "not guilty" form. … Moreover, both counsel agreed with the court that the only issue left to be determined by the jury was whether the government had promised the defendant immunity from prosecution.

Pickett, Ferdinand v. Prince

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2000

But we do not read section 103(a) as qualifying the exclusive right of the owner of the copyright of the original work to make derivative works based on that work, the right conferred by section 106(2). … In that sense Prince’s symbol clearly "pervades" both guitars.

Sherrod v. Berry

827 F.2d 195 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 20, 1987

Smith was well qualified to discuss this matter, and indeed defendants did not question his qualifications at trial. Sherrod v. Berry, 629 F.Supp. 159, 162 (N.D.Ill.1985). … As discussed above in Part I, the record clearly indicates that the defendants acted recklessly and with gross negligence. Thus damages were properly awarded to Lucien Sherrod. V.

Ohio-Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Co. v. Kaplan

745 F.2d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 21, 1984

There is “broad latitude” in establishing antitrust damages in private suits, and although Ohio could not establish damages with “mathematical certainty,” it had at its disposal the tools lawyers generally employ to make … Judge Parsons’ practice of taking evidence on post-verdict conduct was clearly warranted by our 1978 instructions and as a matter of original principles.

Salvatore Ziccarelli v. Thomas Dart

35 F.4th 1079 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2022

Inter- ference or restraint alone is enough to establish a violation, and a remedy is available under § 2617 if the plaintiff can show prejudice from the violation. B. … Threatening to discipline an employee for seeking or using FMLA leave to which he is entitled clearly qualifies as inter- ference with FMLA rights. See Preddie, 799 F.3d at 818.

United States v. Mervyn T. Butler

12 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 29, 1993

This clearly disposes of the "intent to distribute" part of the count. … The evidence of their past dealings was meant to establish that Butler had both a motive and the opportunity to join the charged conspiracy.

Pedro Flores Torres v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2008

In the course of his questioning, the IJ referred to “boot camp” and “drill sergeants,” common American military concepts that were clearly unfamiliar to Torres. … Even assuming, arguendo, that the IJ did not err by requiring a nexus for Torres’s mistreatment as a prerequi- site to finding him credible, a proper analysis of the record shows that Torres clearly did establish such a nexus

Universal Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., an Indiana Company v. Mark Jabin and Lelia Jabin

16 F.3d 1465 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 5, 1994

It is well established that an "insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured party," Copley v. Pekin Ins. … There is nothing in Illinois insurance law that absolutely immunizes the insurer from its strict obligations when terminating or canceling a policy for nonpayment of premiums.

United States v. Nicole Smith

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2023

The district court did not clearly err in including Lithocraft loans #2 and #3 in the loss amount. … The Government must establish the restitution amount by a preponderance of the evidence. See Robl, 8 F.4th at 527.

Latonya Cannon v. Armstrong Containers Inc.

92 F.4th 688 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 9, 2024

Second, the countervailing evidence that the Wave 2 plaintiffs had since produced did not qualify as “new” for purposes of reconsideration because it was available all along. … Moreover, Burton II did not change Wisconsin law but rather applied established Wisconsin law principles.

James Henderson v. David J. Shulkin

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 22, 2017

In a failure‐to‐promote case, to establish a prima facie case a plaintiff must offer  evidence that (1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the  position sought, (3) he was rejected, and (4) the … Further, the agency’s argument implies that even if the fix was  in, the very existence of the process immunizes the agency from liability. 

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co.

687 F.2d 1079 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 3, 1982

The district court clearly indicated that the government’s petition seeking disclosure was pursuant to Rule 6(e). Miller I, 510 F.Supp. at 586 . … We prefer a standard which requires all parties to establish particularized need and which affords governmental agencies no special treatment.