Case law

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. 

George v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc.

641 F.3d 786 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2011

In contrast, if defendants establish that prudence did not require them to make a decision, then plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty will fail. 9 If plaintiffs establish that defendants should have made a decision … If defendants believed that Johnson was not qualified to render opinions as to what the Kraft plan should have done because his experience involved only mid-sized plans, then they should have argued that his opinions were

United States v. Martez Smith

989 F.3d 575 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 3, 2021

Without more, Smith cannot establish that he would have succeeded on his motion to suppress the firearm evidence. Time Pressure. … Smith thinks that under the categorical approach, his § 846 conspiracy conviction does not qualify as a predicate “con- trolled substance offense.”

Kearney & Trecker Corporation v. Giddings & Lewis, Inc.

452 F.2d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 17, 1972

First, it establishes beyond dispute that Beall participated personally and directly in the deliberations within the" Patent Office which preceded the issuance of the original Brainard patent. … Clearly plaintiff was a firm with the capacity to make a serious attempt to acquire monopoly status.

Loretta M. Young and Parvin Young v. Robert N. Baugh and Bessie Baugh

870 F.2d 350 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 16, 1989

STANDARD OF REVIEW The district court’s findings of fact must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Conclusions of law, however, are reviewed de novo. LaSalle National Bank v. … In addition, as noted above, these cases do not qualify the negligence standard based on the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, i.e., licensee, invitee or trespasser.

Stacy Ernst v. City of Chicago

837 F.3d 788 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 19, 2016

But the law clearly requires that this difference in score must correlate with a difference in job performance. … Second, during the disparate-treatment trial, the plaintiffs sought to admit evidence that Gebhardt had previously en- gaged in conduct that reduced the number of jobs for which women qualified.

Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, and United States Department of Justice

742 F.2d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1984

This prematurity view leads the majority to ignore the long-established legal doctrines which govern our review of decisions interpreting consent decrees. … For example, all of the facts recited in p 2.2 were being used by the defendants to establish a mootness defense.

Melissa Thornley v. Clearview AI, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2021

In order to use the machines, a patron had to establish an account using her fingerprint. … If the latter qualifies as an invasion of a ‘pri- vate domain, much like an act of trespass would be,’ Bryant, 958 F.3d at 624, then so does the former.” Id. at 1155.

Melissa Thornley v. Clearview AI, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2021

In order to use the machines, a patron had to establish an account using her fingerprint. … If the latter qualifies as an invasion of a ‘pri- vate domain, much like an act of trespass would be,’ Bryant, 958 F.3d at 624, then so does the former.” Id. at 1155.

Zimmerman, Raymond v. Chicago Bd Trade

360 F.3d 612 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 9, 2004

Rescuing the shorts and punishing the long The plaintiffs attempt to establish that the CBOT’s dom- inant motives were “improper.” … Although superfi- cially suggestive, these notes do not establish the CBOT’s bad faith.

Howard, Sherman v. Gramley, Richard

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 23, 2000

Appellate lawyers are clearly not incompetent when they refuse to follow a "kitchen sink" approach to the issues on appeals. … Because trial counsel did not object to the admission of this particular expert opinion (and the trial court had qualified Dr.

Medcom Holding Company, Cross-Appellee v. Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc. And Medtrain, Inc.

106 F.3d 1388 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 14, 1997

Michel, 66 F.3d 894, 904 (7th Cir.1995) (requiring “clearly inconsistent” positions for judicial estoppel to apply). There is no self-contradiction in MHC’s positions. … They do not provide guidance to the jury_ [MHC] ’s evidence did not permit the jury to adjust its verdict downward if it decided only to partially accept Reagan’s qualified opinion that the balance sheet should be reduced

Hortencia Bohen v. City of East Chicago, Indiana

799 F.2d 1180 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 28, 1986

We disagree. 12 We may only overturn the district court's determination of the motivation for Bohen's discharge if it is clearly erroneous. Batson v. … We find nothing to indicate that his finding regarding the motivation for Bohen's discharge is clearly erroneous.

United States v. Gardner, Ruby

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 3, 2000

Noting that its obligation is to prove intent, not motive,/2 the Government counters that it presented circumstantial evidence to establish that Ms. Gardner had the requisite intent. … If a statute clearly indicates on its face that Congress intended both statutory provisions to be applied for the same conduct, then the statute controls.

Russell Armfield v. Sonja Nicklaus

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 11, 2021

A federal court may grant habeas relief following an adju- dication on the merits in state court only if that decision (1) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as … Washington provides the clearly established federal law for Armfield’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

United States v. Clayton Fountain, Thomas E. Silverstein, and Randy K. Gometz

768 F.2d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 8, 1985

The same is true even more clearly with regard to the judge’s refusal to subpoena Gometz. … “Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree, shall suffer death unless the jury qualifies its verdict by adding thereto ‘without capital punishment,’ in which event he shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.” 18

Khan v. Bland

630 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2010

Qualified partici- pants pay a percentage of their income toward rent and utilities and receive subsidies for the balance of the rental payment. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f. … “A property interest of constitutional magnitude exists only when the state’s discretion is ‘clearly limited’ such that the plain- tiff cannot be denied the interest ‘unless specific conditions are met.’ ” Brown v.

Jannotta v. Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc.

125 F.3d 503 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 1, 1997

Thus, a plaintiff seeking to recover punitive damages on a fraud claim must show, in addition to simple fraud, "gross fraud, breach of trust, or 'other extraordinary or exceptional circumstances clearly showing malice and … Even if the evidence established gross fraud with intent to injure (see Roboserve v.

United States v. Rickey White and Elaine White

743 F.2d 488 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 27, 1984

The continuance order clearly, of course, is not a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 nor does it fit into any other category of permissible interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. … The Court refused to decide whether defendants would have to show prejudice to their defense to establish a violation of their right to their chosen counsel.

Alberto Velasco-Giron v. Eric Holder, Jr.

773 F.3d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2014

As  we  have  observed,  howev-­‐‑ er,  Chevron  permits  the  Board  to  establish  its  own  doctrines   when  implementing  ambiguous  statutes.   … He  acknowledg-­‐‑ es   that   the   Board   has   followed   its   own   precedent,   which   it   established   years   before   (in   a   decision   enforced   by   Afridi   v.