Thomas Roberts McMillen

The case concerned whether the parents of a 12-year-old boy were denied due process when the INS issued a departure control order blocking the child's return to the Soviet Union after the family had visited the United States and the child had sought and received asylum. The parents, who had returned to Ukraine, moved for summary judgment to lift the order so they could regain custody of their son. The court granted the motion, holding that the order violated the parents' Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because they received no notice or opportunity to be heard before the INS acted. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the court found the parents' fundamental interest in the care and custody of their minor child outweighed the government's interest, and that adding procedures for parental participation would impose minimal burden. The court noted that existing regulations provided a hearing only to the minor alien and contained no mechanism for notifying or involving absent parents.

immigrationfamily lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves objections by debenture holders and their indenture trustee to the treatment of their Class B claims under a 1985 plan of reorganization for the bankrupt Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Co. The objectors sought fixed rather than contingent interest payments at rates higher than the 5% coupon rate in their 1955 Indenture, including legal or equitable rates from 1976 or 1978 onward, while the debtor and shareholders proposed maintaining the debentures' original contingent status. The court sustained the objections in part by enforcing the Indenture's acceleration clause triggered by the bankruptcy filing, ruling that principal and unpaid interest became due immediately upon the trustee's 1978 demand, with 5% interest accruing annually from January 1, 1976 regardless of available net income, plus interest on the claims at a fair rate but without compounding or higher equitable adjustments. The core reasoning rested on the plain language of the Indenture's default and acceleration provisions, which contained no requirement tying interest to net income, and the need for fair and equitable treatment consistent with the contract terms rather than granting windfall rates above those for other creditors.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted by jury on seven counts of failing to file income tax returns and providing false information on W-4 forms. The court denied the defendant's post-trial motions, including claims of Speedy Trial Act violations, challenges to the Sixteenth Amendment's validity, and a motion for acquittal. The court reasoned that delays were mostly excludable under the Speedy Trial Act due to pretrial motions and extensions, the amendment's ratification validity was not justiciable per Supreme Court precedent, and evidence of the defendant's prior compliance and notices supported the jury's finding of willfulness.

criminal lawtaxesfederal power

The case involved a former inmate at Sheridan Correctional Center who sued Illinois prison officials, claiming that his eight-day solitary confinement without running water in his cell violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, resulting in health issues, and seeking $500,000 in damages. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claim. The reasoning was that the undisputed facts showed the plaintiff had daily access to showers, a gymnasium, and other sources of water, along with food and medical care, so the conditions did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment or intentional disregard of his well-being, and any issue might amount to negligence rather than a constitutional violation.

civil rightscriminal law

In Sullivan v. Stefanik, the plaintiff brought pendent state-law claims for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against a defendant following a criminal proceeding in which a preliminary hearing resulted in a finding of probable cause. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the probable cause determination collaterally estopped the plaintiff from pursuing those claims. The court denied the motion, holding that the incomplete record of the preliminary hearing—lacking details on testimony, representation, and the precise charges—failed to satisfy the requirements for collateral estoppel under Illinois law. The decision drew on precedents such as Whitley v. Seibel and Brown v. Green, which similarly treated ambiguous state-court records as non-preclusive in later civil actions, and permitted further discovery, including the deposition of the assistant state's attorney, to attempt reconstruction of the hearing record.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the University of Chicago Hospitals challenging the Secretary of Health and Human Services' decision affirming the Provider Reimbursement Review Board's refusal to hear the hospital's appeal of its 1980 Medicare reimbursement determination. The Board declined jurisdiction because the hospital's hearing request was filed 37 days after the 180-day statutory deadline under 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a)(3), and it found no good cause for an extension under its regulations. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the Board's discretionary denial of a time extension was committed to agency discretion by law under the Administrative Procedure Act and thus not subject to judicial review absent an abuse of discretion, which was not shown here, consistent with precedents like Califano v. Sanders.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

In this antitrust dispute, Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corp. sued Pepsico, Inc., which responded with a counterclaim alleging that Dunlop and several affiliated foreign corporations conspired to violate the Sherman Act through pricing and market practices. Certain foreign entities moved to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of personal jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Clayton Act. The court denied the motions as to Dunlop Holdings, P.L.C., International Sports Company, Ltd., and Slazengers, Ltd., concluding that the parent exercised control over personnel, financing, and policies sufficient to show they were transacting business in the district, but granted dismissal to Sportlines International, Ltd. due to its lack of contacts. The ruling applies precedents allowing jurisdiction based on parental control without requiring subsidiaries to be mere shams and favors consolidating related antitrust claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a bankrupt debtor, Geraldine Wells, seeking to discharge an educational loan debt of $5,573.20 owed to the Illinois State Scholarship Commission. The bankruptcy judge determined that repaying the loan would impose undue hardship on the debtor and her dependents, who were living at poverty level, and that the debtor showed good faith by attempting partial repayment, allowing discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B). The district court reviewed the findings and concluded they were not clearly erroneous, affirming the discharge and dismissing the creditor's appeal.

procedurefederal power

The case involves a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit where the plaintiff, publisher of "Software News," alleges that the defendant's planned "Computer + Software News" infringes its mark and seeks an injunction and monetary damages. The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff's jury demand, contending the action is primarily equitable. The court denied the motion, holding that the request for money damages presents legal issues that must be tried by a jury under the Seventh Amendment, following precedents like Beacon Theatres and Dairy Queen, which require legal claims to be resolved first even when equitable relief is also sought. The court had previously severed liability from damages but determined that factual issues like secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion in the trademark claim necessitate a jury trial on liability as well.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between Dimmitt & Owens Financial, Inc., which had purchased accounts receivable from Unique Industries, Inc., and the United States over the enforceability of IRS tax liens totaling more than $152,000 against those receivables. The IRS filed notices of lien in DuPage County, Illinois, beginning in July 1979, and later sought to foreclose on collections made by the plaintiff after the statutory period. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, finding the liens valid and enforceable for approximately $400,000 in post-grace-period collections. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6323(f), the proper filing location for liens on a corporation's personal property is the state of its principal executive office, which the undisputed evidence established was in Illinois based on the company's incorporation address, records, correspondence, financial statements, and management activities there, even though manufacturing occurred in California.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a patent infringement suit brought by Syva Co. against Miles Laboratories, Inc., concerning U.S. Patent No. 3,935,074, which describes an immunoassay method using steric hindrance between epitopes on a reagent to detect ligands like drugs via antibody binding. The parties stipulated to try only the infringement issue (under the doctrine of equivalents, not literal infringement) for claims 1, 2, and 8, assuming validity for that purpose. The court found that Miles' Ames Assay, which uses an enzyme-substrate reaction (beta-galactosidase with umbelliferyl-beta-D-galactoside) to generate fluorescence, did not infringe because it employs a different mechanism, label, and detection process that is not equivalent to the patented antibody-based method. Key differences include the Ames Assay's use of a single epitope and measurement of a reaction product rather than unbound or bound antibodies. The court entered judgment of noninfringement for Miles, dismissing the complaint.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves a motion to enforce a bankruptcy judge's contempt order against Henry B. Moore for failing to comply with prior orders to pay for use and occupancy of property at 3008 Greenwood Road. The district court granted the motion, entering a judgment of $1,066 against Moore and ordering him to vacate the premises. The court reasoned that Moore could not challenge the underlying orders by violating them but should have appealed instead, that the plaintiff had standing to seek enforcement, and that the bankruptcy judge's findings of willful violations and recommendation for sanctions were appropriate, including eviction after non-compliance with rent orders, without deciding on homestead exemption claims due to lack of proof of ownership.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a mortgage bank's attempt to obtain a sheriff's deed after a foreclosure sale on the debtors' property, which was halted by an automatic stay when the debtors filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition just before their redemption period expired. The Bankruptcy Judge lifted the stay, concluding he lacked jurisdiction to extend the Illinois statutory redemption period. On appeal, the District Court decided that the right of redemption is part of the bankruptcy estate and that the bankruptcy court has authority under sections 105 and 108 of the Bankruptcy Code to extend the redemption period, vacating the order and remanding for appropriate action to protect that right.

propertyprocedurefederal power

The case involved trustees of a multi-employer pension fund suing an Ohio corporation for $9,232.84 in delinquent contributions under ERISA and the LMRA. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment after the defendant failed to appear following proper service. It found personal jurisdiction under ERISA's nationwide service of process provision, holding that due process was satisfied because the defendant, as a U.S. resident, had sufficient contacts with the United States. The court denied the motion under the LMRA and noted that future complaints should allege the multi-employer fund status.

labor & employmentprocedure

In American Orthodontics Corp. v. American Hospital Supply Corp., the plaintiff sued the defendant alleging trademark infringement and related claims after the defendant renamed its orthodontic products division to American Ormco in 1980. The court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendant from using the name American Ormco or the word "American" alone in marketing its orthodontic products. The decision was based on findings that the plaintiff's use of "American Orthodontics" and "American" since 1968 had acquired secondary meaning in the trade, creating a likelihood of confusion among purchasers, in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The court noted some actual confusion and that the balance of hardships favored the smaller plaintiff company, while allowing the defendant to use its original Ormco name or identify the division as part of American Hospital Supply Corporation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved neighborhood associations and residents challenging the Department of Housing and Urban Development's approval of federal Section 8 subsidies and mortgage insurance for a 17-story mixed-income apartment building in Chicago. Plaintiffs alleged that HUD improperly used fast-track processing after state financing fell through, violating its own regulations, site standards, and the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement. The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not alleged any particularized, redressable injury from the approvals that would be remedied by terminating the federal assistance.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In Allen v. Civitello, trustees of multi-employer pension and health and welfare funds sued an employer for unpaid contributions due under a collective bargaining agreement with a union local. The court granted reconsideration and entered a default judgment against the defendant employer for $9,187.03 plus liquidated damages, auditing fees, attorney's fees, and expenses. The core reasoning was that a 1980 amendment to ERISA (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1145) authorizes fiduciaries to bring such suits in federal court and applies retroactively, while the union's joinder as a party was not required for jurisdiction under § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned plaintiffs' efforts to enforce their copyright in the Multistate Bar Examination against defendant, who raised counterclaims and affirmative defenses challenging the validity of the copyright on grounds that state-related works are ineligible, the exam is not a copyrightable literary work, and certain Copyright Office regulations exceed statutory and constitutional authority. The court granted plaintiffs' motions to dismiss Counts I and II of the counterclaim and strike the corresponding defenses, holding that the Copyright Act permits states to obtain copyrights and that bar examinations qualify as original literary works. It continued the motions addressing the regulations' validity until the Register of Copyrights could be joined as a party. The core reasoning relied on the text of 17 U.S.C. §§ 102, 105, 408, and 704, which exclude only federal works from protection, treat the listed categories as illustrative, and allow identifying material for unpublished secure tests, consistent with constitutional authority over copyrights.

propertyprocedure

This case involves trustees of employee benefit funds suing an employer under a collective bargaining agreement for unpaid contributions to welfare, vacation, and pension funds since 1970, pursuant to federal statutes including § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and ERISA provisions. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment to bar claims accruing more than five years before the 1979 filing date, arguing that the Illinois statute of limitations for oral or hybrid contracts applied because identifying beneficiaries required parol evidence. The court denied the motion, holding that the agreement was a written contract with identified parties (the employer and trust funds as third-party beneficiaries), so the ten-year limitations period governed, and that ERISA did not independently authorize recovery for pre-1974 contributions in this context. The decision emphasized that damages could be calculated from payroll records without altering the written nature of the contract and noted procedural options to handle any later changes in law.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves plaintiffs who filed a class action lawsuit in Illinois state court claiming that certain loan charges by a federal savings and loan association violate state law. The defendant removed the case to federal district court, arguing that federal statutes and regulations fully control its practices and thus preempt state claims, creating federal jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case back to state court, holding that federal question jurisdiction requires the federal issue to appear on the face of the complaint and that a federal preemption defense does not provide grounds for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The decision follows circuit precedent that preemption asserted as a defense does not make the claim arise under federal law. The court denied the plaintiffs' request for costs associated with the remand motion.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure