Case law

Richard A. French v. Norman G. Owens, Richard A. French v. Norman G. Owens, United States of America, Amicus Curiae

777 F.2d 1250 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1986

The court was clearly within its right to enjoin such “outmoded and inhuman” practices. Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 621, 648 (E.D.Va.1971). … For example, if a psychiatrist is not immediately available, such as during the middle of the night, perhaps another qualified physician might approve the initial restraint.

Staci Harrington v. Nancy Berryhill

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 10, 2018

That statute provides the legal framework for chal‐ lenging  agency  actions  the  plaintiff  believes  to  be  unlawful  because  they  were  “contrary  to  constitutional  right,  power,  privilege, or immunity” or “in excess … Nevertheless, Justice Sotomayor and her col‐ leagues  determined  that  regardless  of  the  policy  outcomes,  the text of the law clearly required upholding the offsets. 

Joseph Brown v. Jeffrey Kemp

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 13, 2023

Schirmer, 621 F.3d at 586–87 (rejecting standing to challenge state law under First Amendment where the law clearly did not apply to plaintiffs’ actions and arresting officers were clearly mistaken in arresting plaintiffs). … Qualifying acts in- clude acts similar to those listed in subsection (2)(a)(7): “1. Maintaining a visual or physical proximity to the victim. 2. Approaching or confronting the victim. …. 6m.

United States v. Yildiz

404 F. App'x 71 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 10, 2010

ORDER Ugur Yildiz pleaded guilty to willfully exporting, without a license, firearms qualifying as defense articles. See 22 U.S.C. § 2778 (b)(2). … But Yildiz does not develop an argument that the district court clearly erred in making its factual findings. See United States v. Santiago, 495 F.3d 820, 824 (7th Cir.2007).

United States v. Serfling, Scott

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 5, 2007

Serfling has not met his burden of establishing such a probability. See United States v. Eberhart, 434 F.3d 935, 939 (7th Cir 2006). … No. 06-1613 11 documents as “not relevant” hardly qualifies as reasonable diligence. See United States v.

United States v. Keith Newman

148 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 15, 1998

See USSG § lB1.2(e) (“A plea agreement (written or made orally on the record) containing a stipulation that specifically establishes the commission of additional offense(s) shall be treated as if the defendant had been convicted … Based on this evidence, the district court did not clearly err by finding that Newman actually served sufficient jail time on the 1983 convictions to warrant the addition of two criminal history points for these convictions

United States v. Juan Xoletl-Hernande

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 4, 2012

And although the judge did not clearly state his view of Xoletl‐Hernandez’s argument in mitigation that the district lacked a fast‐track program, he was not required to, because Xotletl‐Hernandez did not establish that he …  would have qualified for fast‐track sentencing in districts that have it. 

United States v. Recendiz, Gerardo

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 3, 2009

In light of Rule 901, Navar’s contention that the court erred in admitting Special Agent Tulshi’s identification because he was not qualified as an expert is wholly meritless. … Therefore, he has failed to establish prejudice resulting from his counsel’s decision not to request the instruction. III.

United States v. Loizzi, James

200 F. App'x 599 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 6, 2006

Loizzi objected to characterizing his state conviction as a controlled substance offense and argued that the underlying facts establish that the offense involved only simple possession. … But the Hernandez case is clearly distinguishable. The Third Circuit authorized looking beyond the New York “certificates of disposition” because their accuracy was “seriously called into question.”

City of West Chicago, Illinois v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Kerr-Mcgee Chemical Corporation, Intervening City of West Chicago v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Kerr-Mcgee Chemical Corporation and R.G. Page

701 F.2d 632 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 1, 1983

Sec. 4332 (2)(C). 14 The Act clearly envisions certain actions for which an EIS is unnecessary. Hanly v. … In the order before this Court, NRC clearly stated its reasons for issuing Amendment No. 3.

Galicia, Maribel R. v. Gonzales, Alberto R.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 2, 2005

The BIA also found that she did not qualify for cancellation of removal because she had not been present in the United States for the requisite ten-year period. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Ms. … Indeed, at times, the IJ’s questioning clearly assumes the role of counsel for the Government. It goes beyond clarification or simply filling in the interstices of Ms.

Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Company v. Sealy, Inc.

585 F.2d 821 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 12, 1978

These factors clearly influenced the court. As it stated in its ruling on the new trial motion: 77 The size of the jury's verdict was shocking. … The latter authorities seem to us clearly more in keeping with the meaning of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

United States v. 93.970 Acres of Land

258 F.2d 17 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 15, 1958

The defendants in that action refused to waive immunity and moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Thereupon, plaintiff in that action withdrew its complaint. … In that case the government contended that the defendant had failed to establish any interest in a certain portion of the condemned property.

Boomer, Frank H. v. AT&T Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2002

The arbitration process established by this section is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 - 16. … You have the right to take any dispute that qualifies to small claims court rather than arbitration.

John McCottrell v. Marcus White

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

Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380–81 (2007) (where a reliable videotape clearly captures an event in dispute and blatantly contradicts one party’s version of the event so that no reasonable jury could credit that party’s story, a … But on this record, we cannot rule 12 In the final sentence of their brief on appeal, the defendants also assert that they were “at least entitled to qualified immunity.” Defendants’ Brief at 31.

Entm't USA, Inc. v. Moorehead Commc'ns, Inc.

897 F.3d 786 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 26, 2018

Consequently, R & R must demonstrate that the damage award is clearly erroneous or contrary to law to have it set aside. Id. R&R Real Estate , 854 N.E.2d at 370-71 (cleaned up). … Arms-length contracts do not establish fiduciary relationships.

Central Illinois Carpenters He v. Jay J. Olsen

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 15, 2012

While Olsen also challenges the assumptions of the audit (for instance, the Funds’ direction to Romolo & Associates to treat any work not clearly identified as not covered, as covered), he admitted in his deposition that  … Contrary to Olsen’s argument, the trust agreements do not require an audit pursuant to GAAP to establish liability and even if an “audit” were required, the payroll audit performed by Romolo & Associates would qualify.  

United States v. James A. Simon

727 F.3d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2013

Simon funded, when it was established, he put in about 2,000,000 plus  dollars  of  his  own  money,  after‐tax  dollars. When they loaned money to JAS Partners, the same thing, Judge. It’s Mr.  … His  main  theory  of defense for those disbursements was that they were loans that he intended to repay, a theory that he was fully able to present to the jury and that the jury clearly rejected. 

Mcmahon v. Pennsylvania Life Insurance Company

891 F.2d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 12, 1989

The subjective nature of a determination under the "center of gravity" test ... is clearly contrary to that goal. … Third, Guertin was clearly seeking an explanation of the phrase's meaning in a personal injury/tort context.

Cojocari v. Sessions

863 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 11, 2017

The REAL ID Act The Secretary of Homeland Security or the-Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who qualifies as a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1)(A). … . § 1101(a)(42)(A). 1 The burden of proof rests on the applicant to establish that he or she is a qualifying refugee. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(i).