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

In this case, the plaintiff, Chicago Joe's Tea Room LLC, had plans to open an adult entertainment business in a suburb of Chicago. However, the Village of Broadview denied the plaintiff's application for a special-use permit, which led to the plaintiff claiming that their constitutional rights were violated. The plaintiff sought millions of dollars in lost profits for the business that never opened. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois excluded most of the plaintiff's evidence and theories for lost-profit damages due to substantive and procedural issues. The court then awarded the plaintiff just $15,111 in damages. The plaintiff appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding no abuses of discretion. The appellate court stated that the plaintiff's calculations of lost profits were beyond the scope of the plaintiff's personal knowledge of a similar business and required expert-like analysis and adjustments. The court also ruled that the plaintiff failed to disclose necessary damages evidence in a timely manner, a violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff was also denied the opportunity to amend their complaint to challenge a state statute, as the request was made a decade after the issue became relevant. The court found that granting the amendment would have caused undue delay and prejudice to the Village. View "Chicago Joe's Tea Room, LLC v. Village of Broadview" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the petitioner, Monta Anderson, sought to vacate his guilty plea for conspiring to distribute heroin, claiming that his plea was not knowing and voluntary due to his counsel's alleged ineffective assistance. Anderson argued that his counsel advised him to plead guilty without first consulting a toxicology expert on whether the heroin he distributed was a but-for cause of a user's death. Previously, the court had remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Anderson had articulated a viable claim of attorney ineffectiveness.On remand, Anderson presented evidence that consultation with a toxicology expert would have revealed the government's inability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the heroin he supplied was a but-for cause of the user's death. However, the government argued that even without the death-results enhancement, Anderson would have faced a mandatory life term due to his prior felony drug convictions and the fact that two individuals suffered serious bodily injuries from overdosing on heroin supplied by Anderson.Having considered the evidence and arguments, the court concluded that Anderson was not prejudiced by any alleged ineffectiveness of his counsel. Even if the death-results enhancement were discounted, Anderson still faced a mandatory life term due to his prior felony drug conviction and the serious bodily injuries caused by his heroin distribution. As such, his decision to plead guilty and accept a 20-year sentence was reasonable. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment denying Anderson's motion to vacate his guilty plea. View "Anderson v. United States" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit considered an appeal by Linnel Blount, Jr., who was convicted on drug and gun charges in 2019 and sentenced to 63 months in prison. Blount's jury trial was initially set for February 2020 but was postponed to March 2020 at his request. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a series of court orders suspended criminal jury trials from March 2020 through April 2021. The district judge deferred Blount's trial further during this period, citing health and safety considerations. Blount eventually waived his jury trial and agreed to a bench trial, which commenced in July 2021.On appeal, Blount argued that his indictment should have been dismissed under the Speedy Trial Act because the delay of his trial was based on the general pandemic-related court orders rather than individualized, case-specific circumstances. However, the court of appeals found that Blount's lawyer did not make a formal motion to dismiss the indictment, which is necessary under the Speedy Trial Act. Moreover, the court determined that the district judge was not required to interpret Blount's pro se filings as implicit motions to dismiss.More broadly, the court held that the Speedy Trial Act does not require judges to reiterate considerations that have already been established by the court as an institution. It concluded that the delay of criminal jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic was justified by societal, not personal, considerations, and that such delays were permissible under the Speedy Trial Act. The court affirmed Blount's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Blount" on Justia Law

The case concerns an appeal by Brandon Cade against a ruling by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, before the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit. Cade was arrested by Chicago police officers who noticed an open bottle of alcohol in a sedan next to which Cade and another individual were standing. During a search of the car, officers found an unlicensed firearm and Cade admitted it was his. He was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. Cade argued to suppress evidence of the gun and his incriminating statements, but the district court denied his motion. Cade pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling. He argued that his initial encounter with the officers was an unlawful seizure and that his incriminating statements should be suppressed because the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to seize him.The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. The court found that the initial encounter with the officers was consensual and did not constitute a seizure. The court also ruled that even if there was an unlawful seizure, Cade's incriminating statements were sufficiently attenuated from any allegedly unlawful conduct. The presence of the open alcohol bottle provided probable cause for the search, which led to the discovery of the firearm, and Cade's admission to owning the firearm occurred after he was read his Miranda rights. The court concluded that there was no evidence of bad faith by the officers, and that an evidentiary hearing was not needed as there were no material factual disputes. View "United States v. Cade" on Justia Law

Aluminum Recovery Technologies (ART) operates a smelter and during a renovation, one of its furnaces failed, causing molten aluminum to escape and damage the plant and the furnace itself. The insurance company, ACE American Insurance, paid for some of the damages but not the cost of replacing the furnace's refractory. ART sued ACE, arguing that an explosion in the furnace caused the damage and thus, the insurance company should cover the refractory replacement costs. However, the insurer argued that the policy specifically excludes coverage for any damage to the refractory lining unless it directly results from specific perils such as fire, lightning, windstorm, hail, or explosion. The United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in favor of ACE. The court held that the explosion did not necessarily cause the leak, and ART failed to provide engineering evidence to support its claims. Additionally, the court found that ART had consented to the investigation protocol proposed by the insurer's experts, which involved destructive testing that led to the need for the refractory's replacement. Therefore, the insurer was not responsible for the additional expenses incurred due to the replacement of the refractory lining. View "Aluminum Recovery Technologies, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Jeffrey Bruno, a veteran firefighter with the Kankakee Fire Department, sued Mayor Chasity Wells-Armstrong, James Ellexson, the Human Resources Director for the City of Kankakee, and the City of Kankakee, alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA). Bruno suffered a severe cardiac event in 2017 and upon his return to work was promoted to Deputy Chief. However, in 2019, he was denied a raise and presented with an employment contract that tied additional compensation to his enrollment in college courses. When Bruno requested the removal of this education condition, citing his heart condition as a barrier to attending classes, his request was denied. After signing the contract, Bruno retired and initiated legal proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, which had granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court concluded that Bruno's request to remove the education condition was not a request for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, as it would not impact his ability to perform his job. The court also rejected Bruno's claim of disparate treatment, as his argument of pretext was contradicted by the evidence. Bruno's ADA retaliation claim also failed because his identified protected activity was not protected under the ADA. As Bruno's IHRA and indemnification claims were dependent on his ADA claims, these too were rejected. View "Bruno v. Wells-Armstrong" on Justia Law

Donald Pierce was convicted of multiple counts of child molestation and of being a repeat sexual offender. The case revolved around the testimonies of the victim and several adults who had been told about the incidents. Pierce's lawyer did not object to the sequence of these testimonies, which violated an Indiana evidentiary rule. Pierce later petitioned for post-conviction relief, arguing that his lawyer's failure to object meant he was deprived of constitutionally adequate representation. This was denied by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which found that the lawyer's failure to object was strategic and did not constitute constitutionally deficient performance. Pierce then sought habeas relief, alleging the state appellate court had unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent and made an unreasonable fact determination. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the previous decision, finding that the state court did not unreasonably apply the precedent and its fact determination was not unreasonable. View "Pierce v. Vanihel" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed a dispute involving the owners of two parcels of real estate in Chicago who contended that banks tried to collect notes and mortgages that belonged to different financial institutions. The state judiciary had ruled that the banks were entitled to foreclose on both parcels, but the properties had not yet been sold and no final judgments defining the debt were in place. The plaintiffs attempted to initiate federal litigation under the holding of Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., arguing that their case was still pending. However, the district court dismissed the case, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which states that only the Supreme Court of the United States can review the judgments of state courts in civil suits.The Appeals court held that the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was incorrect in this case because the foreclosure litigation in Illinois was not yet "final". According to the court, the foreclosure process in Illinois continues until the property is sold, the sale is confirmed, and the court either enters a deficiency judgment or distributes the surplus. Since these steps had not occurred, the plaintiffs had not yet "lost the war", and thus parallel state and federal litigation could be pursued as per Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.However, by the time the district court dismissed this suit, the state litigation about one parcel was over because a sale had occurred and been confirmed, and by the time the Appeals court heard oral argument that was true for the second parcel as well. The Appeals court stated that Illinois law forbids sequential litigation about the same claim even when the plaintiff in the second case offers novel arguments. The court found that the plaintiffs could have presented their constitutional arguments in the state court system and were not free to shift what is effectively an appellate argument to a different judicial system.The court also noted that Joel Chupack, the lead defendant, was the trial judge in the state case and was not a party to either state case. He did not claim the benefit of preclusion. Judge Chupack was found to be entitled to absolute immunity from damages, as he acted in a judicial capacity.The judgment of the district court was modified to reflect a dismissal with prejudice rather than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and as so modified it was affirmed. View "Bryant v. Chupack" on Justia Law

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition by Darnell Dixon, who was convicted of home invasion and murder by an Illinois state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Dixon's habeas petition primarily focused on claims of actual innocence and prosecutorial misconduct. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of his habeas petition by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.The case involved a series of events including a drug-related robbery and subsequent murders. Dixon and Eugene Langston were implicated in the murders, with Langston identified in a police lineup by a witness, Horace Chandler. However, Chandler later recanted this identification. The state's case against Dixon relied heavily on a confession that Dixon later claimed was false. Dixon's confession and Chandler's identification of Langston were central to the state's theory of accomplice liability, arguing that Dixon was accountable for Langston's acts.In his habeas petition, Dixon argued that he was denied due process when the trial court excluded evidence that charges against his alleged accomplice, Langston, were dismissed. He also asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the exclusion of that evidence. Furthermore, Dixon claimed that the state committed prosecutorial misconduct by presenting conflicting positions regarding Langston's involvement in the murders at trial and during post-conviction proceedings.However, the Seventh Circuit found that Dixon's claim of actual innocence, based on the state's post-conviction contention that Langston's involvement was irrelevant and evidence of abusive and perjurious conduct by the case's police detective, did not meet the high standard required to conclusively prove his innocence. The Seventh Circuit also rejected Dixon's arguments of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel, finding no clear error in the district court's factual findings on these issues. View "Darnell Dixon v. Tarry Williams" on Justia Law

In an appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed a case concerning Adam Tyrale Williams Jr.'s ongoing effort to reduce his sentences for crack-cocaine offenses. Williams was convicted in 2001 of various drug-related offenses, and over the years, he sought sentence reductions based on retroactive amendments to the guidelines and, most recently, the First Step Act of 2018. The district court denied Williams's most recent application for sentence reduction, but the appellate court vacated the decision because the district court failed to calculate the amended statutory sentencing ranges applicable to Williams's convictions. Upon remand, Williams further emphasized changes to his record and conditions of confinement that occurred after the order was vacated. However, the district court again denied Williams's request shortly after receiving the updated motion. The appellate court found that the district court's reliance on its previous reasoning and failure to adequately explain its decision was an abuse of discretion. Thus, the appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, indicating that a more complete explanation from the district court was necessary given the changes in law and facts relevant to the case. View "USA v. Williams" on Justia Law