Richard Dickson Cudahy

The case concerned whether Renee Everett, a non-signatory to a franchise agreement between Paul Davis Restoration, Inc. (PDRI) and her husband’s company EAGB, could be compelled to arbitrate disputes under the agreement’s terms. PDRI terminated the franchise for cause and sought to enforce a non-compete provision and other obligations through arbitration; Everett sued for a declaratory judgment that she was not bound because she had not signed the contract. The district court found insufficient direct benefits to apply estoppel and vacated aspects of the arbitration award, but the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Everett’s 50% ownership, active operation of the franchise business, and post-termination continuation of the same operations under a new name using PDRI’s goodwill constituted direct benefits from the agreement. The court therefore enforced the arbitration award against her under the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel and rejected claims of panel bias or overreach.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Willie Diggs, who pleaded guilty to drug trafficking offenses and received a below-guidelines sentence of 282 months; after a retroactive amendment lowered the crack cocaine guidelines, he moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) that would have applied the same downward variance to the new range. The district court denied the motion pursuant to USSG § 1B1.10, which bars reductions below the amended guideline minimum except in cases of substantial assistance. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, ruling that the policy statement did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because § 3582(c)(2) proceedings can only reduce sentences and defendants have no constitutional entitlement to retroactive guideline relief. The court further held that the Sentencing Commission acted within its statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) when it limited the retroactive application of the amendment.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involves the Central States Pension Fund seeking to collect withdrawal liability from General Warehouse, Inc. and affiliated entities after the company ceased contributing to the fund in 2005. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the Fund, holding that the defendant entities were under common control with General Warehouse and thus jointly and severally liable for the $1.26 million liability. The core reasoning focused on George Cibula's acquisition of at least 80% voting control over GEOBEO through stock redemption and assignment agreements, which satisfied the regulatory definition of common control under 29 U.S.C. § 1301(b)(1) and related IRS regulations. The court also upheld the characterization of the defendants as trades or businesses based on their management activities, tax filings, and other operational factors, and confirmed there is no right to a jury trial in MPPAA withdrawal liability actions.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved Norman Breedlove, who had pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and firearms offenses but was found incompetent for sentencing due to paranoid schizophrenia. The district court authorized the Bureau of Prisons to involuntarily administer antipsychotic medication to restore his competency, applying the framework from Sell v. United States. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court made adequate findings on each of the four Sell factors, including that the medication was substantially likely to restore competency, was medically appropriate, and was necessary given the government's interest in sentencing. The court also rejected arguments that the treatment plan lacked sufficient detail on dosage and that competency should be reexamined shortly after the hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the allocation of costs for new high-voltage 500-kV transmission lines built in the eastern part of the PJM regional electrical grid among all member utilities. Midwestern utilities and the Illinois Commerce Commission petitioned for review of a FERC order, issued after an earlier remand, that required western members to contribute to the costs of lines from which they receive limited direct benefits under a DFAX-based methodology. The Seventh Circuit reviewed whether FERC had adequately shown that the cost shares assigned to western utilities were roughly commensurate with the benefits they would obtain. The court concluded that FERC's justification was insufficient because the evidence did not establish meaningful benefits to the western utilities from the eastern lines.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved Matthew Whitfield, an African-American electrician applicant, suing Navistar (formerly International Truck and Engine Corp.) under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for failure to hire based on race. Whitfield applied in 1996, met the experience requirements by 1998 with an IBEW card, but was never hired despite the company filling multiple electrician positions with white applicants during the relevant period; he alleged verification issues and unstated qualifications masked discrimination. The district court ruled against him after a bench trial, excluding evidence from a related class-action trial showing extreme racial hostility at the plant. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part but reversed in part, holding that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the class-action evidence, which was relevant to proving circumstantial discrimination and had been inconsistently treated in the proceedings, and remanded for further consideration.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved borrowers who sought to rescind two mortgage loans under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), alleging that the lenders failed to provide adequate payment schedule disclosures and the required number of notices of the right to cancel. The district court ruled that the disclosures violated TILA, allowing rescission of the loans, but conditioned rescission on the borrowers tendering the outstanding loan amounts; it also awarded statutory damages and reduced attorneys' fees after finding the borrowers only partially prevailed. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed these rulings, holding that TILA permits courts to set reasonable rescission procedures including tender requirements, that the fee reduction was reasonable given the limited success and prior approved rates for counsel, and that other claims for damages were time-barred. The core reasoning centered on statutory interpretation of TILA's disclosure and rescission provisions, along with established standards for fee awards under lodestar adjustments.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved defendant Todd Sutton's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his cousin's apartment, where agents executing a warrant found more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. Sutton, who pleaded guilty but preserved his right to appeal, argued that the warrant lacked probable cause due to stale information from a confidential informant, insufficient corroboration, and at least one false statement in the supporting affidavit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion, concluding that probable cause existed under the totality of the circumstances because the informant had personally observed cocaine at the address, provided details corroborated by police database checks and a photo identification, had a track record of accurate prior information, and appeared before the issuing judge. The court also determined that any error by the informant about Sutton's relationship to the tenant was minor and did not undermine the warrant's validity.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Margarita Zayas, a Puerto Rican ultrasound technician over age 50 who worked at Rockford Memorial Hospital until her termination in 2011, alleging national origin and age discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA as well as a hostile work environment. The hospital stated that it fired Zayas for repeatedly sending disrespectful emails to her supervisor after multiple warnings, and the district court granted summary judgment to the hospital on all claims. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Zayas failed to produce evidence linking her termination or workplace incidents to discriminatory motive based on age or national origin, that her replacement by a younger employee and isolated comments were insufficient to support the claims, and that the incidents were not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile environment tied to her protected characteristics.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerned a union pension fund trustee's effort to enforce a judgment against an irrigation company (Alpine) for unpaid ERISA contributions by substituting two related new companies (RWI and JV) as judgment debtors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c). The district court granted the substitution after finding the new entities were successors, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appeals court held that the facts showed notice of liability and substantial continuity of operations, including shared ownership, employees, location, and customers, satisfying ERISA's successorship test. It also ruled that the appellants had not properly requested or justified an evidentiary hearing, so the lack of one did not violate due process.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned Julio Chavarria, a legal permanent resident convicted after a 2009 guilty plea to cocaine distribution charges, who later sought to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the ground that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by giving incorrect assurances that he would not face deportation. After the Supreme Court decided Padilla v. Kentucky in 2010, which imposed a duty on counsel to advise noncitizen clients of deportation risks from pleas, Chavarria argued that the rule applied to his situation even though his plea predated the decision. The Seventh Circuit held that Padilla announced a new constitutional rule that does not apply retroactively on collateral review, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Chaidez v. United States. The court rejected Chavarria's further argument that affirmative misadvice by counsel could support a pre-Padilla ineffective assistance claim, concluding that no such distinction created an independent retroactive basis for relief under existing precedent. Accordingly, the district court's dismissal of the motion was affirmed.

immigrationcriminal law

The case concerned a life-sentenced prisoner at Menard Correctional Center who sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that 25 lockdowns totaling 534 days between 2008 and 2010 violated the Eighth Amendment by causing prolonged cell confinement without exercise and related physical and psychological harm, along with related conspiracy and Due Process claims over withheld idle pay. The district court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claims at the § 1915A screening stage. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the claims could proceed under a cumulative-violation theory for statute-of-limitations purposes because the lockdowns, though individually short, added up over time with only brief interruptions, distinguishing this from discrete acts or mere continuing injury.

civil rightscriminal law

This case involves a claim for black lung benefits by George Bailey, a coal miner with 26 years of experience who suffers from COPD and seeks compensation under the Black Lung Benefits Act. The court affirmed the award of benefits, applying the revived 15-year presumption that a miner's total respiratory impairment after 15 years in the mines is due to pneumoconiosis. The court reasoned that the presumption applied to Bailey's subsequent claim, that medical evidence established his total disability, and that the employer failed to rebut the presumption with evidence attributing the disease solely to smoking rather than coal dust exposure.

labor & employment

This case involved a class-of-one equal protection claim brought by Karl Swanson and Kathy Wietharn against the City of Chetek and its mayor, Jerry Whitworth. The plaintiffs alleged that Whitworth used his position to harass Swanson by interfering with building and fence permits due to personal animosity, including blocking permits and initiating baseless municipal court proceedings. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding insufficient evidence of a similarly situated individual treated more favorably. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part, holding that a strong showing of animus can support a class-of-one claim even without a robust comparison to another individual, citing the series of illegitimate actions against Swanson and referencing precedents like Geinosky v. City of Chicago.

civil rights

The case involved Suganthan Pathmakanthan, an ethnic Tamil from Sri Lanka, who entered the U.S. in 2007 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture after repeated detentions and questioning by Sri Lankan security forces during the conflict with the Tamil Tigers. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied all relief, finding insufficient evidence of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, and later denied his motion to reopen based on claimed changes in country conditions. Pathmakanthan petitioned for review, arguing error in those determinations. The Seventh Circuit denied the petitions, holding that the record did not establish persecution, that conditions in Sri Lanka did not support a well-founded fear claim, and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the motion to reopen because the evidence did not demonstrate changed country conditions.

immigration

The case involved Jason Pape, who pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and was sentenced to 90 months in prison plus 20 years of supervised release by the district court. Pape appealed, arguing that the court failed to adequately address his non-frivolous arguments for a shorter sentence, including his community involvement, family caregiving responsibilities (particularly for children with disabilities), sentencing disparities across Wisconsin districts, and critiques of the child pornography Sentencing Guidelines. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court sufficiently considered Pape's personal history and family factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), that a below-Guidelines sentence creates a presumption of proper consideration of disparity arguments, and that the court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly rejecting a Guidelines disagreement as grounds for a much lower sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Darryl Simms's appeal from the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his Illinois convictions for murder and related offenses. The Seventh Circuit addressed whether the petition was timely under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations, focusing on when Simms's state post-conviction and habeas filings tolled the period and whether equitable tolling applied. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the limitations clock started on July 7, 2004, after withdrawal of Simms's post-conviction claims, was not tolled by his improper petition for rehearing after denial of leave to appeal, and was not subject to equitable tolling due to Simms's lack of diligence in pursuing his claims. The petition was therefore filed one day late.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a bankruptcy trustee's attempt to avoid a 2001 mortgage lien on Indiana property under 11 U.S.C. § 544, based on a technical defect in the mortgage's notarization that allegedly prevented it from providing constructive notice to bona fide purchasers. The bankruptcy court ruled that Indiana's 2007 amendment to its recording statute applied only prospectively to mortgages recorded after July 1, 2007, allowing avoidance of the pre-amendment mortgage. The district court reversed, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the 2007 amendment applied to all mortgages regardless of recording date. The court reasoned that the 2007 amendment's language was ambiguous but that the legislature's quick 2008 clarifying amendment, along with other indicators of intent, showed the provision was meant to apply retroactively to defective mortgages like the one at issue.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Ondray Pulley, who pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud for participating in a scheme to defraud the United Airlines Employees’ Credit Union by using stolen personal information to open accounts, deposit fraudulent funds, and withdraw cash in Las Vegas. Pulley was sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment, at the high end of the guidelines range, and appealed on grounds that the government’s omissions at his co-defendant’s sentencing created procedural errors in credibility findings and that his sentence was unreasonable compared to his co-defendant’s. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court committed no procedural error in addressing conflicting testimony and the § 3553(a) factors, including differences in cooperation and criminal history between the defendants. The court also found the sentence substantively reasonable within the applicable guidelines range after proper consideration of disparity arguments.

criminal lawprocedure

Marcus Kilgore, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after an incident in which he took a gun from his brother following a shooting and carried it outside an apartment. He later moved to withdraw the plea, asserting a justification defense based on the circumstances. The district court denied the motion, finding the facts did not support such a defense, and imposed a 92-month sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the undisputed facts precluded a justification defense because Kilgore possessed the loaded gun for over an hour without exhausting legal alternatives and that the sentence was reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

criminal lawguns