Judge Diane P. Wood
Easterbrook: 7th Circuit 'nation's leader' in productivity
May 22, 2013
Dave StaffordChief Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals presented his final State of the Circuit address during
the Circuit conference this month in Indianapolis, describing the federal appellate court for Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin
as perhaps the nation’s most industrious.
More7th Circuit addresses sex offender registration law
May 3, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has joined a majority of other circuits nationwide in finding that the federal sex offender
registration law is not a retroactive punishment on those who were convicted prior to 2006 and traveled after the law was
enacted.
More7th Circuit first to decide on resentencing, procedural rule issue
January 4, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled on an issue that hasn’t been addressed by any of its counterparts nationwide,
finding that sentencing guidelines revised three years ago still only give District judges one chance to modify penalties
based on a federal criminal rule of procedure.
MoreLook-alike offense counts as controlled-substance offense in sentencing
August 25, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA previous conviction for a “look-alike” offense constitutes a controlled-substance offense for sentencing purposes,
the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the first time Tuesday.
More7th Circuit: Officer allowed to resume frisk
August 10, 2010
Jennifer NelsonAs one 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge cautioned, it’s generally not a good idea to ride around in a car with cocaine
on you when
police have many reasons why they may legitimately stop the car.
More7th Circuit: Insurer can challenge its duty to defend
June 22, 2010
Elizabeth BrockettThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted a stay imposed by the District Court in Hammond on an insurer’s declaratory
judgment action regarding coverage of a physician who skipped town instead of facing criminal charges and civil suits.
MoreNo Brady violation in sex-sting case
August 13, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA defendant failed to show there was a Brady violation in his trial for enticing who he thought was an underage girl
he met on the internet, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.
MorePolice officer not entitled to qualified immunity
August 3, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a police officer isn't entitled to qualified immunity in a suit claiming excessive
force because the officer didn't have a reason to point a submachine gun at the plaintiffs during the execution of a search
warrant.
MoreMen took substantial steps to commit crime
December 18, 2008
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the same issue in two separate Indiana cases of men chatting on the Internet with
people they believed to be teen girls: whether there was evidence the men had taken "substantial steps" toward committing
the crimes of enticing a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity.
More7th Circuit jurist guest judge for competition
February 21, 2008
IL StaffThe final round of the Sherman Minton Moot Court competition will have several distinguished guest judges on the panel, including
a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge.
MoreSponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!