Published opinions from 2014. The case name opens the case page.
November 13, 2014771 F.3d 403
The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of Pyles’s claim concerning wet prison stairs because the slipping hazard was not sufficiently serious to support an Eighth Amendment claim, although the district court used an improper pleading standard and an overly restrictive view of prison conditions.
August 5, 2014761 F.3d 822
The court affirmed summary judgment for Officer Stange because he had no realistic opportunity to prevent the single blow, but vacated summary judgment for Officer Gonzalez because a jury could credit evidence that Gonzalez deliberately struck Miller after Miller was subdued.
August 1, 2014761 F.3d 732
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of a putative class complaint alleging that Jos. A. Bank violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act by advertising ordinary retail prices as temporary sale prices.
The court reversed the district court’s affirmance of the denial of disability benefits and remanded for further proceedings. It held that the ALJ’s evaluation of Beardsley’s daily activities, the conflicting medical opinions, and her decision not to undergo surgery did not adequately support the conclusion that she…
April 30, 2014750 F.3d 708
The court affirmed summary judgment for the prison officials and the denial of Olson’s requests for recruited counsel. It concluded that Olson was competent to litigate a straightforward case and that the record could not support a finding that either official actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk to…
The court reversed the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of benefits and remanded for further agency proceedings because the ALJ did not adequately explain the RFC and credibility determinations in light of the full record.
February 4, 2014742 F.3d 720
The court affirmed the judgments in both consolidated cases. It held that the disparate-impact allegations lacked factual content, the disparate-treatment claims lacked evidence of pretext, and the second suit was precluded because it again challenged the testing process resolved in the first suit.