« Indiana Courts - Blakely Waiver in State Courts? | Main | Indiana Decisions - Supreme Court orders new election in East Chicago! »

Friday, August 06, 2004

Indiana Decisons - Four from the 7th Circuit Today

Haslund, Shannon L. v. Simon Property Group (ND Ill.)

Before BAUER, POSNER, and COFFEY, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge. In a diversity suit for breach of contract governed by Illinois law, the district judge after a bench trial awarded Shannon Haslund $537,634.41 in damages, plus prejudgment interest, against Simon Property Group (SPG). 284 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (N.D. Ill. 2003). SPG’s appeal argues that the provision of the contract that it was found to have violated was too indefinite to be enforceable, that no injury was proved, and that in any event no prejudgment interest should have been awarded. * * *

Although SPG’s breach of her employment contract appears to have been deliberate and indeed reprehensible, without proof of actual loss Haslund is entitled only to nominal damages, Kleinwort Benson North America, Inc. v. Quantum Financial Services, Inc., 673 N.E.2d 369, 378 (Ill. App. 1996); Movitz v. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 148 F.3d 760, 765 (7th Cir. 1998) (Illinois law)—which eliminates any entitlement to prejudgment interest, as well.

The judgment is reversed with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff for nominal damages only. REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS.

Pugel, Diane v. Bd Trustees Univ IL (CD Ill.)
Before POSNER, RIPPLE and MANION, Circuit Judges.
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. After dismissal for academic misconduct from the University of Illinois (“the University”), Diane Pugel brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Board of Trustees of the University (“the Board”). She alleged violations of her due process and free speech rights. Ms. Pugel also brought state claims. The district court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. For the reasons set forth in the following opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
USA v. Singletary, Jahneria (SD Ill.)
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and MANION and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
FLAUM, Chief Judge. * * * We next turn to Singletary’s two remaining claims which consist of challenges to the district court’s application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. First, Singletary argues that the district court erred by not granting her a three-point sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Second, Singletary contends that the district court erred by finding that her relevant conduct involved between 500 grams and 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. * * * Under Blakely as interpreted in Booker, a defendant has the right to have a jury decide factual issues that will increase the defendant’s sentence. As Booker holds, the Guidelines’s contrary assertion that a district judge may make such factual determinations based upon the preponderance of the evidence runs afoul of the Sixth Amendment. Thus, in light of the analysis set forth in Booker, we remand Singletary’s case to the district court for resentencing.

III. CONCLUSION. Singletary’s challenge to the pretrial ruling against her has been waived by her unconditional guilty plea. However, Singletary’s sentence is VACATED and the case will be REMANDED for resentencing consistent with this Court’s opinion in United States v. Booker, 2004 WL 1535858 (7th Cir. July 9, 2004).

Burrell, William D. v. City of Mattoon (CD Ill.)
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
KANNE, Circuit Judge. William D. Burrell served as the city clerk for Mattoon, Illinois from July 1994 until April 30, 2001, when he was allegedly terminated from the position by the newly elected mayor and incoming city council. The new mayor and city council had not taken office at the time of Burrell’s alleged firing; yet, Burrell sued the City, the mayor-elect, and incoming city council members in federal court, claiming that they deprived him of his job without due process of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Burrell’s § 1983 claim and on his supplemental state law claims. We affirm.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 6, 2004 12:42 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions