Ann Claire Williams

How Judge Williams rules, drawn from 40 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Williams no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Position
circuit
Status
Retired 2018
Served
1999–2018
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1999-11-15
Education
Wayne State University (B.S., 1970); University of Michigan (M.A., 1972); University of Notre Dame Law School (J.D., 1975)
Signed orders read
40

How Judge Williams decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

A prison disciplinary finding based on chemical analysis required both the test results and a chain of custody linking them to the prisoner.

“both the test results and a chain of custody linking those results to the particular prisoner.”

An insurer had a duty to defend when at least one theory in the underlying complaint potentially fell within policy coverage.

“Importantly, ‘if several theories of recovery are alleged in the underlying complaint against the insured, the insurer’s duty to defend arises even if only one of several theories is within the potential coverage of the policy.’”

Procedural preferences

A clear statement declining reimbursement for work on a fee motion waived a later claim for those attorney fees.

“So, Pickett waived her claim to attorney’s fees.”

A benefits denial explanation was adequate when it gave the claimant enough information to formulate a further challenge.

“The important point is that the reason given is a sufficient explanation to allow the recipient to ‘formulate his further challenge to the denial.’”

Cautions

The single-recovery rule and judicial estoppel prevented a second recovery for the same injuries and theory after a prior settlement.

“Because we find that the single‐recovery rule and the doctrine of judicial estoppel apply here”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

United States v. Christopher M. Hodges
259 F.3d 655 · 2001-07-30
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“the judgment of the district court is AffiRmed.”

United States v. Ralph Wayne Angle
315 F.3d 810 · 2003-01-10
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“we Vacate Angle’s sentence and Remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Frank L. Brown
333 F.3d 850 · 2003-08-12
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“the judgment of the district court is AffiRMed.”

United States v. Elizabeth R. Roach
372 F.3d 907 · 2004-06-24
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the reasons stated below, we affirm.”

United States v. William A. Beith
407 F.3d 881 · 2005-05-16
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“we Vacate Beith’s sentence and ReMand his case for resentencing consistent with this opinion”

United States v. James E. Jackson
410 F.3d 939 · 2005-06-09
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“We therefore vacate Jackson’s sentence and remand for resentencing.”

Viktoria B. Orichitch v. Alberto R. Gonzales
421 F.3d 595 · 2005-08-31
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted

“we grant her petition for review and remand her case for proper consideration of her adjustment of status application.”

Jon Knutsen v. Alberto R. Gonzales
429 F.3d 733 · 2005-11-22
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted

“we GRANT Knutsen’s Petition for Review, Vacate the removal order of the IJ dated September 23, 2003, and Remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Mamadou T. Diallo v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States
439 F.3d 764 · 2006-03-09
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted

“we Vacate the order of the BIA and Remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Spring L. Acosta and Candace R. Radermacher
474 F.3d 999 · 2007-02-05
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“Spring Acosta’s sentence is VACATED.”

United States v. John E. Boyle
484 F.3d 943 · 2007-05-03
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We affirm the sentence of the district court because acceptance points are inappropriate in light of Boyle’s sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice.”

United States v. Edwin W. Blinn, Jr.
490 F.3d 586 · 2007-06-13
Appeal (appellant) Moot / procedural

“Accordingly, Blinn’s appeal is Dismissed.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Circuit judges do not carry a trial caseload; not enumerated.

A historical record

Judge Williams no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.