Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Mar. 18, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 March 18, 2009 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge Nos. 08-1067 & 08-1689 LINDQUIST FORD, INC., STEVEN Appeal from the LINDQUIST, and CRAIG MILLER, United States District Court for the Plaintiffs-Appellees, Western District of Wisconsin. v. No. 07 C 12 MIDDLETON MOTORS, INC., Barbara B. Crabb, Defendant-Appellant. Chief Judge. O R D E R The petition
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 March 18, 2009 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge Nos. 08-1067 & 08-1689 LINDQUIST FORD, INC., STEVEN Appeal from the LINDQUIST, and CRAIG MILLER, United States District Court for the Plaintiffs-Appellees, Western District of Wisconsin. v. No. 07 C 12 MIDDLETON MOTORS, INC., Barbara B. Crabb, Defendant-Appellant. Chief Judge. O R D E R The petition f..
More
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 March 18, 2009 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge Nos. 08‐1067 & 08‐1689 LINDQUIST FORD, INC., STEVEN Appeal from the LINDQUIST, and CRAIG MILLER, United States District Court for the Plaintiffs‐Appellees, Western District of Wisconsin. v. No. 07 C 12 MIDDLETON MOTORS, INC., Barbara B. Crabb, Defendant‐Appellant. Chief Judge. O R D E R The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The slip opinion released on February 25, 2009, in this matter is AMENDED as follows: The last sentence of footnote 4 on p. 18 of the slip opinion (“There is no need for a presumption where, as here, there is direct and circumstantial evidence about Lindquist’s expectation of payment.”) is DELETED. The following is INSERTED in its place: There is no need for a presumption where there is direct or circumstantial evidence about expectation of payment; applying a presumption in such a case is not only unnecessary but inappropriate. Here, there is both direct and circumstantial evidence about Lindquist’s expectation of payment, and therefore no presumption applies.
