Source: http://www.wiappellatelaw.com/page/2/
Timestamp: 2015-05-25 05:00:41
Document Index: 337416449

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1335', '§ 753', '§ 135', '§ 135', '§ 135', 'art 2', 'art 2']

CommentShare: Judge Posner on Bankruptcy’s "Clean-Up" Jurisdiction
Posted By Eric G. Pearson on 24 February 2015 Posted in Federal Decisions; Seventh Circuit
Tags: bankruptcy, jurisdiction
CommentShare: Seventh Circuit Requires "Cash on the Barrelhead" from Interpleaders
Posted By Eric G. Pearson on 18 February 2015 Posted in Federal Decisions; Seventh Circuit
Judge Easterbrook and his colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit aren’t about to exercise jurisdiction over a civil action of interpleader merely on credit or promises to pay. The plaintiff has to pony up the goods.
This was the holding of the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Jonas, No. 14-1464 (7th Cir. Dec. 31, 2014), an opinion authored by Judge Easterbrook, in which Judges Flaum and Kanne joined. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1335 provides federal courts with jurisdiction over certain interpleader actions, but it requires (1) minimal diversity and (2) that “the plaintiff has deposited such money or property . . . into the registry of the court.” Without that “cash on the barrelhead,” the Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction.
Tags: subject-matter jurisdiction
CommentShare: A Reminder from the Seventh Circuit on the Importance of Creating a Record
Posted By Eric J. Hatchell on 9 February 2015 Posted in Federal Decisions; Seventh Circuit
When the court makes an evidentiary ruling off the record, it is required to enter on the record an explanation of the reasoning behind its decision. See, e.g., United States v. Nolan, 910 F.2d 1553, 1559 (7th Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. § 753(b). But what is a party’s recourse on appeal if the court failed to meet this requirement and the party didn’t object at the time?
None. So explained the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Lawson, No. 14-1233 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2015), a case which should serve as an important reminder about preserving off-the-record rulings for appeal in civil and criminal cases alike.
CommentShare: Seventh Circuit Speaks Again on How the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law Applies in Arbitration
A few months ago, we commented on an aspect of the interaction between the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL), Wis. Stat. ch. 135, and arbitration, as discussed by the Seventh Circuit in Everett v. Paul Davis Restoration, Inc., No. 12-3407 (7th Cir. Nov. 3, 2014). That case dealt with the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel, under which a nonsignatory to an arbitration clause was nonetheless held bound to arbitrate. The second issue in the case was whether the WFDL barred the use of arbitration clauses in dealership agreements, and the court made clear that it did not.
The Everett dealership was located in Wisconsin, and the dealership agreement provided for application of the WFDL, which would have been the default rule anyway (§ 135.02(1) defines a dealer under the law as “a person who is the grantee of a dealership situated in this state,” and § 135.025(3) invalidates any contractual provision that seeks to vary the effect of the WFDL). Similarly, the dealership in Reynard v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., No. 14-1730 (7th Cir. Jan. 30. 2015), was located in Wisconsin, so that it, too, was presumptively subject to the WFDL’s terms, one of which requires notice and an opportunity to cure before a dealership may be terminated. § 135.04. But the arbitrators upheld a termination that didn’t meet these terms, so the terminated dealer sought to have the arbitration award vacated on the ground that they had acted in “manifest disregard of the law.” This non-statutory ground for vacating arbitral awards is still recognized by the Seventh Circuit, even though it is far from clear that it survived the Supreme Court’s decision in Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008).
Latest Tweets from WIAppellateLaw Sen. “Johnson would only consider backing two candidates for court vacancy” by @WisVoter http://t.co/kWnXbNctN8 #7thCir 2 days ago “Crooks says Roggensack threatened to throw justices off cases” by @patrickdmarley and @journalsentinel http://t.co/hwfACYpfdY #SCOWIS 2 days ago Shaking Down the Thunder From the Sky: Part 2 of Notre Dame's Challenge to the Contraception Mandate http://t.co/SR9cJ2HMfB 4 days ago Shaking Down the Thunder from the Sky: Part 2 of Notre Dame's Challenge to the Contraception Mandate http://t.co/SR9cJ2HMfB 4 days ago RT @howappealing: "U.S. Supreme Court declines to derail WI 'risk contribution' lead paint cases": Bruce Vielmetti of The Milwaukee… http:/… 6 days ago Foley Blogs CFSL Bulletin