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

In a 1998 attempt to kill a member of a rival gang, gang members shot and killed Jacqueline Brenaugh, when she peered out of her apartment window After being arrested, Coleman admitted serving as an accomplice. The confession was recorded. He moved to suppress his confession, claiming that he had invoked his right to an attorney several times and that the police had proceeded in violation of Miranda v. Arizona. The court denied Coleman’s motion, holding that “the credibility is resolved on behalf of the State.” Convicted of first-degree murder under an accomplice liability theory, Coleman was sentenced to 28 years. On appeal, he included an affidavit from his attorney, Wiener, stating that Wiener had called the police station during the interrogation and requested that police cease questioning his client. After exhausting state appeals and post-conviction remedies, Coleman filed a pro se habeas petition. The district court denied relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Coleman v. Hardy" on Justia Law

In 2004 Caterpillar hired Hanson as a supplemental assembler. Under the plant’s collective bargaining agreement, supplemental employees work 40 hours per week on a temporary but indefinite basis. They are not entitled to seniority rights and benefits in the same way as full-time employees. Two weeks into her stint as an assembler, Hanson injured her neck while installing a hydraulic hose. Hanson did not seek medical attention nor did she report her injury to plant management until five weeks later. Hanson claims that a union representative cautioned her against doing so. She was temporarily placed on light-duty work, filing papers. Her temporary position ended, but a doctor Hanson’s progress had plateaued and that her medical restrictions would continue indefinitely. Although another doctor indicated that she was fit to return to work, Hanson’s employment was terminated. In her suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101, the district court granted summary judgment for Caterpillar, reasoning that Hanson was not a “qualified individual with a disability.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Caterpillar placed her in three different positions, all within her medical restrictions and did not regard Hanson as impaired as to a broad range of jobs. View "Hanson v. Caterpillar, Inc." on Justia Law

ProLink and GPS compete, manufacturing and selling GPS-based golf course distance measurement and course management products. GPS owns the 518 patent for a player positioning and distance finding system and sued ProLink for patent infringement. GPS also claimed slander of title and unfair competition, alleging that ProLink falsely represented that it owned an exclusive license under the patent as part of a security agreement with Comerica Bank. This agreement was recorded and allegedly encumbered GPS’s title. ProLink entered into a second agreement, this time representing that it owned outright the 518 security agreement. ProLink was insured under Federal’s commercial general liability insurance policy and requested defense. Federal informed ProLink that it would not defend or indemnify because GPS’s allegations did not satisfy the policy definition of “personal injury;” if they did, the Intellectual Property Laws or Rights Exclusion or Expected or Intended Injury Exclusion would apply. ProLink sought declaratory judgment that Federal breached its duty to defend. The district court found in favor of Federal , holding that the first alleged “personal injury” for which GPS sought damages (2006) occurred outside of the policy period (2007-2008). The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The underlying allegations concern only disparagement of property, which is not covered. View "ProLink Holdings Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2006 Rann was convicted of two counts of criminal sexual assault and one count of possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of 12 years for each sexual assault conviction and 15 years on the child pornography conviction. Rann unsuccessfully pursued direct appeal in state court arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not seek to suppress incriminating evidence in the form of digital images obtained without a warrant from a zip drive and a camera memory card. The district court denied his petition for habeas corpus. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Rann’s challenge to the warrantless search of digital media devices brought to police by his victim (his 15-year-old biological daughter) and his victim’s mother was without merit. Because he cannot prevail on his Fourth Amendment argument, Rann’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland fails. View "Rann v. Hulick" on Justia Law

Garvey and four coconspirators engaged in a scheme to steal lawnmowers, tractors, trucks, ATVs, snowmobiles, and trailers along the Minnesota-Wisconsin border and then transport and sell the stolen items. Thomas and Olson were responsible for stealing the items; Wyttenbach and Trejo assisted in storing and selling. At various times, Garvey was involved in all aspects of the scheme. Garvey was charged with conspiring to transport, possess, sell, and dispose of stolen vehicles and goods in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. 2, 371, and eight counts of theft, transportation, or sale of specific stolen vehicles or goods in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. 2312-15. All four co-conspirators pled guilty and testified against Garvey. Over the course of the four-day trial, the government called 31 witnesses and presented phone records which demonstrated frequent interaction among Garvey, co-conspirators, and buyers. The jury convicted Garvey on six of the nine counts. Garvey was sentenced to 60 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that misstatement of the court’s subpoena power prevented Garvey from calling a witness to impeach one of the co-conspirators and that a mistrial should have been declared after the prosecutor’s questioning prompted a witness to declare that he smoked marijuana with Garvey.View "United States v. Garvey" on Justia Law

Since at least the late 1990s, the U.S.EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) have worked on a remedial plan for the Fox River. One of companies that was designated as a “potentially responsible party (PRP),” responsible for undertaking remedial work with respect to PCBs dumped in the river, was NCR. Acting under administrative orders, NCR has performed significant cleanup, but in 2011 it announced that it had done more than its share. The EPA and WDNR obtained an injunction and NCR has complied. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. NCR did not show that the harm to the river is capable of apportionment under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9606(a). View "United States v. NCR Corp." on Justia Law

West was convicted of second degree sexual assault of a child (Wis. Stat. 948.02(2)) and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment followed by six years’ extended supervision. He claimed that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated by a 14-month delay between the filing of charges against him and the scheduled start of his trial. This delay prejudiced him, he claims, because his allegedly key alibi witness, Robinson, died in the interim. The state court rejected his constitutional claim and summarily affirmed his conviction. West sought habeas corpus relief in the district court, which denied his petition. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The record contained ample evidence supporting the state court conclusion that West was not prejudiced by the delay. Robinson did not die anywhere close to the “presumptively prejudicial” 12-month mark; rather, he passed away six months after the state filed its complaint. View "West v. Dittmann" on Justia Law

Flava, which specializes in production and distribution of videos of black men engaged in homosexual acts, obtained a preliminary injunction against myVidster, an online social bookmarking service by which people refer sites to those with similar tastes, based on a finding that myVidster is a contributory infringer. The Seventh Circuit vacated the injunction. A Flava customer is authorized only to download the video for his personal use. If instead he uploaded it to the Internet and so by doing so created a copy (because the downloaded video remains in his computer), he was infringing. The court remanded for determination of whether myVidster was a contributory infringer if a visitor to its website bookmarks the video and later someone clicks on the bookmark and views the video. View "Flava Works, Inc v. Marques Rondale Gunter, et al" on Justia Law

In 2005, Lox received medical treatment from Dr. Baylor and incurred a debt. Lox failed to pay. His debt was referred to CDA, a debt collection agency. CDA attempted to collect Lox’s debt was through dunning letters, and one of those letters included a warning that failure to pay his debt could lead to a lawsuit brought against Lox. The letter further stated that if Dr. Baylor was successful in his lawsuit, Lox could be ordered by the court to pay Dr. Baylor’s attorney fees. Lox claimed violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, claiming that Dr. Baylor could not, under any circumstances, have recovered attorney fees from Lox. The district court granted CDA summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The attorney fees statements found in CDA’s dunning letters were materially false and misleading on their face. View "Lox v. CDA, Ltd." on Justia Law

Guzman, seven-and-a-half months pregnant, home alone, in bed, heard the doorbell and knocking. She walked toward the door. Sergeant Bonnstetter of the Chicago Police Department burst through the door. Officers wearing body armor rushed in, many with guns drawn. Guzman, fearful and crying, was ordered to lie face down on the floor. When she tried to position herself more comfortably, Rojas forced her down, pressing her pregnant belly against the floor. The Joint Gang Task Force executed a warrant, searching the apartment for about an hour. Guzman sued. The district court entered summary judgment in her favor, finding Bonnstetter and Rojas liable. At a damages-only trial, Guzman proved medical expenses. The court allowed defendants to testify that the search was legal and reasonable and that others might have caused Guzman’s injuries. The court instructed the jury that Guzman had to prove that Bonnstetter and Rojas were “personally involved” and could not be held “liable” for the conduct of “other employees.” The court instructed the jury to award nominal damages if Guzman failed to prove that her damages were the direct result of defendants’ conduct. Guzman was awarded $1. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Defendants’ theory of the case and evidence and the instruction likely confused the jury. View "Guzman v. Bonnstetter" on Justia Law