Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Suspecting that defendant was operating a cocaine-trafficking ring, officers conducted a traffic stop and found $3,800, but no drugs. An officer declined defendant's offer of a bribe and reported it to his supervisor, who planned a "sting." During the following weeks defendant paid the officer to "get the heat off" and for cocaine seized by the police department. Defendant was convicted of federal-funds bribery (18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2)) and attempt to possess 500 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. 846) by a jury that rejected his coercion defense.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. There was sufficient evidence that the bribe was offered to influence an agent of an organization, government, or agency that received federal benefits in excess of $10,000 in the year in which the bribe was offered, as required by 666(b). The federal-funds bribery statute covers bribes offered to influence an intangible and hard-to-quantify "business" like law-enforcement.

The company, an egg producer, was charged in class action suits with conspiring to fix the price of eggs, in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. and requested that its liability insurers defend. The company argued that the complaints sought damages for what its policies call "personal and advertising injury," defined as injury. arising out of a list of torts that includes use of another's advertising idea in your advertisement. The insurer refused and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the antitrust complaints make no mention of the company's theory that consumers might believe that advertised "free-roaming" chicken management policies are an attempt to justify prices.

Following multiple surgeries for back injuries and multiple, unsuccessful, claims for disability benefits, the applicant asserted, in a 2008 hearing, that she had been disabled since 2004 and was still disabled but had returned to work because she needed the money. An ALJ found that she had been disabled by chronic back pain but after four years showed "medical improvement." and returned to full-time work.The ALJ awarded benefits for a closed period. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The ALJ never evaluated whether that work constituted an authorized, and encouraged, trial work period and, therefore, could not be labeled as substantial gainful activity.

Decedent was arrested for contempt of court and was treated for alcohol withdrawal before being jailed. After he was jailed, his repeated requests for medication were denied. He was assigned high risk status and scheduled to be observed every fifteen minutes. A doctor prescribed Haldol and Libruim after observing that he was disoriented. He died soon after, on September 27, 2007. In August 2006, decedent's ex-wife was named administrator of the estate and filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed as time-barred by the two-year Illinois statute of limitations for personal injury actions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the court should have tolled the limitations period because the sole beneficiary of the estate was a minor when the cause of action arose.