Posts

In an employment termination action alleging that defendant violated plaintiff’s procedural due process rights in terminating his employment, district court judgment is affirmed where plaintiff had fair notice and an opportunity to be heard as to why the Board should not terminate his employment, and thus he received the process to which he was entitled under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Read Biliski v. Red Clay Consolidated Sch....

In plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against his Illinois State Police supervisors claiming that they retaliated against him because he complained about the conditions at the firing range, district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed but based on a different reason that plaintiff’s internal grievance was on a matter of purely private interest, addressing only the effect of lead contamination on himself and his work environment, it did not raise a matter of public concern and is not protected by the First Amendment....

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was tasked again with reviewing a class action matter that involved an attorney who sent thousands of unsolicited “junk faxes” to prospective clients. This is the third time that this same junk fax case has been before this circuit. While sending unsolicited solicitations can run amok of ethical rules, the attorney at the center of it all actually found himself facing allegations of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which requires “junk faxes” to contain an “opt-out” provision....

Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 06-4100, concerned a dispute over reinsurance coverage, involving allegations of manipulation of post-settlement allocation. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment for the most part, including the district court’s Phase I order in Traveler’s favor as INA did not meet its burden at trial of showing that the allocation decisions it was challenging were driven primarily by reinsurance considerations, as well as the district court’s Phase II ruling that INA is not bound by Traveler’s decision to annualize the per-occurrence limits of the policies INA reinsured....

Everyone gets excited about clean energy sources these days. Who wants to be stuck in the coal age when there’s wind power to be harnessed? Several years ago, Winnebago County, Illinois answered the wind power siren song by making wind farms a permitted use within the zoning ordinance without the need for a special use permit. Since no good deed goes unpunished, Patricia Muscarello sued the Winnebago County Board, the County Zoning Board of Appeals, and some County officials, (along with several affiliated companies that operate wind farms), to challenge the ordinance as a taking....

A federal judge said a Kansas woman may boycott Israel, and the state cannot require otherwise. In Koontz v. Watson, the judge enjoined the state’s enforcement of a Kansas law that requires people who contract with the state to certify they are not engaged in the boycott. Esther Koontz, a public school teacher, sued for relief saying “she could not sign the form in good conscience.” The American Civil Liberties Union called it a “major victory” for free speech....

The High Court issued its last opinion of the term in the big water rights case between Florida and Georgia. To the surprise of many, the Court ruled in favor of Florida, but that doesn’t mean that Florida has won the right to stop Georgia from tapping into the interstate waterway, at least not yet. Rather, the state will be able to continue fighting to restrict the upstream rights. The case centers on Florida’s claim to water rights from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, and the interstate waterways....

In US v. Pineda-Doval, No. 08-10240, the court affirmed defendant’s conviction for transportation of illegal aliens resulting in death, holding that 1) a defendant may be found guilty of transportation of illegal aliens resulting in death only if the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of the charged deaths, and the government made this showing; and 2) because there was no “reasonable likelihood that the jury” thought the greater and lesser offenses were equivalent, there was no error, let alone plain error, in the verdict form....

Chasing a debtor can be complicated, especially when the debtor manages to move its assets to a foreign country. In Crystallex International Corp. v. Petroleos de Venezuela, that would be an understatement. The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals called the debtor’s trail “exceedingly complex.” It was a “tangle of debtors, creditors, parents, subsidiaries, alter egos, and complex international corporate transactions,” but the court unraveled it in three words: no fraudulent transfer....

In habeas proceedings brought by a defendant convicted of first-degree home invasion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, grant of a conditional writ is reversed and remanded where: 1) defendant has not shown that his trial counsel were ineffective and he cannot establish that he was prejudiced by the alleged ineffectiveness; 2) defendant’s appellate counsel was therefore also not ineffective, for appellate counsel cannot be ineffective for a failure to raise an issue that lacks merit; and 3) defendant failed to establish cause and prejudice for his procedural default of an ineffective assistance claim, and is barred from raising the issue on habeas review....

Did you know that there is literally a court above the Supreme Court? Thanks to a recent feature in Sports Illustrated, the not-so-secret but rarely-talked-about court finally got some time in the limelight. Curiously, it’s not a court of law, but rather a less-than-regulation-sized basketball court located above the actual High Court Courtroom. And what might surprise you even more is that there is a rich history of justices playing b-ball with staff and clerks....

The Supreme Court fumbled the warrantless GPS tracking decision on Monday. Yes, privacy advocates are claiming the case as a victory. And it is. But U.S. v. Jones is more of a field-goal-in-overtime victory, than a resounding win for privacy rights. Here’s why. Justice Scalia wrote for the Jones majority that physical trespass – the act of placing the GPS tracker on the suspect’s car – triggered the unreasonable search. “It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information....

At a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina yesterday, real life Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump suggested that a Hillary Clinton presidency would result in a Supreme Court willing to undermine Second Amendment rights – and he may have called for Clinton’s assassination. “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said. “Although the Second Amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know.” It was, to many observers, an unprecedented campaign line, a wink-wink-nudge-nudge call for the murder of your political opponent, over the composition of the Supreme Court....

In Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Comm. Coll. Dist., No. 08-56963, an action challenging a public project labor agreement as preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and as violative of their rights to substantive and procedural due process and to equal protection, the court affirmed summary judgment for defendants where 1) entering into the agreement constituted market participation not subject to preemption by the NLRA or ERISA; 2) the agreement did not violate the plaintiffs’ liberty interest in pursuing their careers as electricians; and 3) the agreement was rationally related to the district’s legitimate interest in preventing labor disruptions....

In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action against a city for failure to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability, an injunction in favor of Plaintiff is vacated where 28 C.F.R. section 35.150(d) is not enforceable through a private right of action. Read Lonberg v. Riverside, No. 06-55781 Appellate Information Argued and Submitted February 2, 2009 Filed June 26, 2009 Judges Opinion by Judge Callahan Dissent by Judge Silverman Counsel For Appellant: Gregory F....

It’s summertime, meaning you’re probably going to be spending some time around the pool during the next few months. Few things are more relaxing than being pooling on a sunny day, and, unfortunately, few places are as dangerous, to children and adults alike. Sadly, accidents happen at swimming pools. And when they do, whose fault are they? That could depend on whose pool it is and the type of injury involved....

Even the smartest person can be taken in by a scam. And unfortunately, many con artists prey on elderly persons to steal their money and personal information. One in 10 people aged 60 or older has been the victim of elder abuse, which includes financial abuse and identity theft. Before his death in 2018, Marvel comic co-creator Stan Lee was the victim of alleged financial abuse. Police charged Lee’s manager with fraud, forgery, and false imprisonment of his client....

In In Re: Ray, No. 09-2984, the Seventh Circuit faced a challenge to the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of two Chapter 11 proceedings. In concluding that the district court erred in finding that the petitioner-law firm satisfied the prerequisites for being a “person aggrieved” and had standing to appeal the dismissal order, the court vacated the decision and held that the law firm did not appear and object as required for bankruptcy standing....

In an action based on an injury plaintiff sustained while using a pulley to move a reel of wire down a small flight of stairs, judgment as a matter of law for plaintiff is affirmed where defendants were liable under New York’s “scaffold law” because the application of the force of gravity to an 800 pound reel of wires caused plaintiff’s hands to be severely injured. Read Runner v. N.Y. Stock Exch....

Grant of Petition for Review of BIA Order In Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder, No. 05-75210, a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)’s determination that petitioner was removable because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony and two crimes of moral turpitude, the court granted the petition where 1) the BIA’s determination was not entitled to Chevron deference, because the BIA did not issue or rely on a precedential decision; and 2) although petitioner admitted both prior misdemeanor convictions, there was no record evidence of the factual allegations underlying his second conviction....