Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Wrongful Death
| N.D. Ill., Eastern Div.
Wright v. Shumate, No. 25-1487
(July 9, 2026)
(BRENNAN)
Affirmed.
Plaintiff filed a section 1983 lawsuit against the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, arguing that they were responsible for the death of his minor child because they failed to investigate earlier allegations of abuse by the boy’s mother and her boyfriend. Plaintiff invoked the state-created danger exception to the general rule that a state actor cannot be liable for failing to protect an individual from private acts of violence. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the allegations in the complaint did not establish that any act by the defendant caused the child’s death or shocked the conscience. (JACKSON-AKIWUMI and MALDONADO, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Breach of Contract
| N.D. Ill., Eastern Div.
The Boldt Company v. Black & Veatch Construction, Inc., No. 25-2003 & 25-2070
(July 8, 2026)
(KIRSCH)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded.
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and defendant filed a counter-complaint also alleging breach of contract after plaintiff, who was hired by defendant as a subcontractor for the assembly of a windfarm, fell behind schedule. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant by finding that plaintiff breached the agreement by failing to perform on schedule, but a jury awarded only nominal damages after a trial on damages only. Both parties appealed, alleging errors. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the jury verdict and affirmed in part and reversed in part the grant of summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. (SCUDDER and TAIBLESON, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Class Action Fairness Act
| S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div.
Creason v. Elanco US Inc., No. 25-1552
(June 29, 2026)
(EASTERBROOK)
Affirmed.
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute alleging that his former employer underpaid his weekly salary by automatically enrolling him in an vacation buy program. Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in state court and sought to represent a class of similarly situated workers. Defendant removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act and ultimately prevailed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that while the district court may have incorrectly declined to act on class certification, its decision in favor of the defendant on the merits of the case was correct. (KIRSCH and KOLAR, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Forum Non Conveniens
| W.D. Wis.
Pavlovich v. Gaiman, No. 25-2754
(June 29, 2026)
(KOLAR)
Affirmed.
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, a well-known author and resident of the state of Wisconsin, in federal court alleging that he repeatedly sexually assaulted her while living in New Zealand in violation of Wisconsin law and the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The district court dismissed the complaint under forum non conveniens and plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion that New Zealand is the more convenient forum to hear the dispute even though the district court would otherwise have jurisdiction over the matter. (SCUDDER and ST. EVE, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Carmack Amendment
| S.D. Ill.
Certain Undrerwriters at Lloyd’s v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 23-1782 & 23-2422
(June 25, 2026)
(LEE)
Affirmed.
In a case involving insurance coverage for four locomotives that were damaged during a hurricane, plaintiff, as the insurance subrogee, filed a lawsuit against two railway companies under the Carmack Amendment. Defendants argued that any liability they might owe was subject to caps specified on their shipping contracts. The district court granted summary judgment for one defendant and a jury found in favor of the other defendant at trial. The plaintiff appealed and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no error in the district court’s judgment. (ST. EVE and KIRSCH, concurring)
|
|
