Case law

First National Bank v. Warren

796 F.2d 999 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 24, 1986

As a rule the denial of a jury trial could not qualify as a “collateral order.” It is reparable on appeal by reversal and a remand for a new trial, with a jury. … Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 , 96 S.Ct. 584 , 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976), allowing use of the writ to correct a clearly erroneous remand of a case to state court, a remand that if not corrected by mandamus could not be corrected

F. J. A. P. v. Merrick B. Garland

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2024

Spe- cifically, the Board found three clearly erroneous “hypothet- ical suppositions.” … First, does either a CAT order or a reinstatement decision qualify as a removal order? Second, is the petition for review filing deadline jurisdictional?

Debra Leveski v. ITT Educational Services, Inc

719 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 8, 2013

Specifically, Congress became concerned in 1992 that “recruiters [of students for institutions of higher education] paid by the head are tempted to sign up poorly qualified students who will derive little benefit . . . and … Furthermore, because ITT raised a factual (instead of a facial) challenge to jurisdic- tion, we are “not bound to accept as true the allegations of the complaint which tend to establish jurisdiction.” Grafon Corp. v.

F. J. A. P. v. Merrick B. Garland

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2024

Spe- cifically, the Board found three clearly erroneous “hypothet- ical suppositions.” … First, does either a CAT order or a reinstatement decision qualify as a removal order? Second, is the petition for review filing deadline jurisdictional?

United States v. Larry Jones and Douglas Nisbet

696 F.2d 479 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 1983

They argue that the one hour or longer surveillance of Nisbet at poolside was time enough to establish Nis *484 bet’s identity and make an arrest. … They claim now that the mention of Nisbet’s refusal to sign a waiver form “clearly focused” on Nisbet’s prior criminal activity and his right to remain silent.

F. J. A. P. v. Merrick B. Garland

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2024

Spe- cifically, the Board found three clearly erroneous “hypothet- ical suppositions.” … First, does either a CAT order or a reinstatement decision qualify as a removal order? Second, is the petition for review filing deadline jurisdictional?

Lydia Vega v. Chicago Park District

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2020

This is an affirmative defense, and once the district court de- termines that the defendant has failed to meet its burden, “[w]e shall not disturb that determination unless it is clearly erroneous.” Id. … But we have previously cau- tioned against relying on similar statistical evidence because it lacks critical context such as the ratio of qualified Hispanics who actually applied for the relevant positions. Hague v.

NLRB v. Neises Construction Corporatio

62 F.4th 1040 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 10, 2023

The record clearly and convincingly establishes that Neises disobeyed our order. Neises offers three broad objections, but none are persua- sive. … The Special Master did not de- termine that Neises failed to engage in specific acts that might qualify as good-faith bargaining.

St. Augustine School v. Tony Evers

906 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 11, 2018

They believe that the record could establish that the defendants consulted St. … It requires parents to decide whether to elect the school that qualifies for benefits, or to forgo the benefits and select a school that better reflects their preferred ritual, doctrine, or approach.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,512 Richard N. Abrams v. Oppenheimer Government Securities, Inc. And James Zurek

737 F.2d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 30, 1984

though unlike the above terms are not agreed upon individually by the parties but instead are standard OGS language, repeatedly refer to the transaction as the purchase and sale of securities. 8 Accordingly, the contract is clearly … It is not necessary that the contract itself qualify as a security. Fisher, supra, 526 F.Supp. at 560 .

Michael Belleau v. Edward Wall

811 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2016

And  although  the  Supreme  Court  has  read  into  the  amendment  a  qualified  protection  against  invasions  of  pri‐ vacy, its recent decision in Grady v. North Carolina, 135 S.  … The  Supreme  Court  has  established  that  parolees  and  probationers  have  a  diminished  expectation  of  privacy.  See  Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 850 (2006); United States v. 

F. J. A. P. v. Merrick B. Garland

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2024

Spe- cifically, the Board found three clearly erroneous “hypothet- ical suppositions.” … First, does either a CAT order or a reinstatement decision qualify as a removal order? Second, is the petition for review filing deadline jurisdictional?

F. J. A. P. v. Merrick B. Garland

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2024

Spe- cifically, the Board found three clearly erroneous “hypothet- ical suppositions.” … First, does either a CAT order or a reinstatement decision qualify as a removal order? Second, is the petition for review filing deadline jurisdictional?

Bankr. L. Rep. P 70,764 in Re Chicago Pacific Corporation, Debtor-Appellee, Appeal of Organization of Minority Vendors, Inc.

773 F.2d 909 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 24, 1985

Judge McGarr found the claim untimely under either bar date. 21 OMVI contends that its claim was governed by the April 12, 1984 bar date established in Order No. 669. … Sec. 959 (a), a belief it clearly could have held when it determined to dismiss the Rock Island.

United States v. 93.970 Acres Of Land, More Or Less, Situate In Cook County, Illinois

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.

United States v. Phillip L. Nolan

910 F.2d 1553 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 24, 1990

Speculation is not sufficient to establish that the government has suppressed evidence. Cf. United States v. … The majority says that the admission by Nolan himself concerning the other 17 bank robberies, as part of a sort of "general confession," qualifies as "bad acts" testimony going to Nolan's identity.

Lydia Vega v. Chicago Park District

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2020

This is an affirmative defense, and once the district court de- termines that the defendant has failed to meet its burden, “[w]e shall not disturb that determination unless it is clearly erroneous.” Id. … But we have previously cau- tioned against relying on similar statistical evidence because it lacks critical context such as the ratio of qualified Hispanics who actually applied for the relevant positions. Hague v.

United States v. James D. Soderna

82 F.3d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 30, 1996

A group cannot obtain constitutional immunity from prosecution by violating a statute more frequently than any other group. Madsen v. … Because I believe that this holding misconstrues relevant Supreme Court precedent and disregards objective evidence of Congress's express intent, from it I must respectfully dissent. 39 * It has long been well established

Young v. Verizon's Bell Atlantic Cash Balance Plan

615 F.3d 808 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 10, 2010

When the Cash Balance Plan took effect in 1996, Nos. 09-3872 & 09-3965 5 Young was not eligible for a service pension under the BAMPP—that is, her age and service level did not qualify … Plans must be “established and main- tained pursuant to a written instrument.” 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(1).

Simmons v. Interstate Commerce Commission

871 F.2d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 7, 1989

Some parties thought these lines qualified for the program. Under the provisions of the Rail Act, these lines are not eligible for acquisition under the program. … Clearly, Congress could have applied the section 10907 exemption to the feeder development program, but it chose not to do so.