Candace Rae Jackson-Akiwumi

How Judge Jackson-Akiwumi rules, drawn from 49 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Joe Biden (Democratic)
Commissioned
2021-07-01
Education
Princeton University (A.B., with honors, 2000); Yale Law School (J.D., 2005)
Signed orders read
49

How Judge Jackson-Akiwumi decides

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

What persuades

Under the Lanham Act, she places the burden of proving costs and deductions on the infringer rather than requiring the trademark owner to separate revenue from profit.

“A trademark plaintiff need not disentangle revenue and profits.”

She distinguishes jurisdiction from the merits and will affirm the result while correcting the legal basis and the prejudice attached to dismissal.

“The district court was correct to dismiss the case, but Wilson’s lawsuit fails on the merits, not necessarily for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we affirm the judgment but modify it to indicate that the dismissal is with prejudice.”

Procedural preferences

She treats Rule 60(b) relief as exceptional and will not disturb a judgment when the movant shows no extraordinary circumstance justifying reconsideration.

“Because Word Seed failed to show any extraordinary circumstances in this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their Rule 60(b) motion.”

She independently reviews objective video evidence and permits a suppression motion to be resolved without an evidentiary hearing when the recording eliminates a material factual dispute.

“Having reviewed the video ourselves, we agree with the district court that Norville did not stop at the intersection.”

On forfeited issues, she retains discretion at plain-error prong four and declines correction when further proceedings would not alter the ultimate result.

“Here, we need not address all of Muhammad’s arguments about plain error because, even if the first three prongs are met, on the facts of this case we will not exercise our ‘broad discretion’ under the fourth prong to correct any error.”

Signed rulings

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

United States v. Forest Norville
21-2493 · 2022-08-04
Appeal (appellant (defendant Forest E. Norville)) Denied

“Because the district court reasonably concluded that the video rendered an evidentiary hearing unnecessary, we affirm. ... The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing. AFFIRMED”

The Word Seed Church v. Village of Homewood
21-1965 · 2022-08-04
Appeal (appellant (plaintiffs Word Seed Church / Civil Liberties for Urban Believers)) Denied

“Because Word Seed failed to show any extraordinary circumstances in this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their Rule 60(b) motion. AFFIRMED”

Javier Diaz Mejia v. Merrick B. Garland
21-2088 · 2023-07-27
Petition for review (petitioner (Javier Diaz Mejia)) Denied

“Diaz Mejia failed to meaningfully challenge the two dispositive issues in his case before the BIA or this court -- the findings of no past persecution and ability to relocate upon return to Mexico. As a result, we are compelled to DENY the petition for review.”

Mary S. Wilson v. United States
22-2087 · 2023-08-01
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Mary S. Wilson)) Denied

“The district court was correct to dismiss the case, but Wilson's lawsuit fails on the merits, not necessarily for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we affirm the judgment but modify it to indicate that the dismissal is with prejudice. ... We AFFIRM the judgment as amended.”

Dyson Technology Ltd. v. David 7 Store
23-2948 · 2025-03-24
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Dyson Technology Ltd.)) Granted

“Because the district court erred in its interpretation of the relevant trademark infringement law and because Dyson met its burden, we reverse and remand. ... We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Ka'ba S. Muhammad
21-1441 · 2022-08-15
Appeal (appellant (defendant Ka'ba S. Muhammad, f/k/a Taurus Zambrella)) Denied

“For the reasons above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and decline to order a limited remand. Because everyone involved agrees that Muhammad paid $433.32 towards his restitution, we are confident he has or will receive credit for that amount.”

United States v. Christopher Easterling
23-1143 · 2025-02-03
Appeal (appellant (defendant Christopher Easterling)) Granted

“Accordingly, we remand for resentencing in light of the amended Guidelines. Because this resolves the appeal, we do not consider whether Easterling's sentence is substantively reasonable.”

Fitsum G. Segid v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
21-3333 · 2022-08-26
Appeal (appellant (petitioner Fitsum G. Segid)) Denied

“Segid's failure to properly present his arguments before us constitutes waiver. ... Because of Segid's waiver, we have no occasion to consider any potentially meritorious arguments about his eligibility for naturalization. AFFIRMED.”

In re: Michael S. Helmstetter (Michael Helmstetter v. David Herzog)
21-2486 · 2022-08-11
Appeal (appellant (Chapter 7 debtor Michael S. Helmstetter)) Denied

“Helmstetter fails to demonstrate that he would be able 'to realize any economic benefit from a potential reversal,' he lacks standing. Therefore, we affirm the district court's judgment dismissing the bankruptcy appeal.”

Jovani Casas v. Merrick B. Garland
20-1739 · 2022-08-29
Petition for review (petitioner (Jovani Casas)) Denied

“because Casas cannot show that she suffered any prejudice as a result of DHS's procedural errors, and because the IJ's reasonable-fear finding is supported by substantial evidence, we must deny her petition.”

United States v. Hector Castaneda
21-3010 · 2023-08-09
Appeal (appellant (defendant Hector Castaneda)) Granted

“Either error warrants reversal. We VACATE and REMAND for resentencing.”

United States v. Jason A. Price
22-2061 · 2023-10-23
Appeal (appellant (defendant Jason A. Price)) Denied

“the standard for remanding a district court's discretionary determination is not met where the court addresses the defendant's meritorious and principal arguments in mitigation. AFFIRMED.”

Draft for Judge Jackson-Akiwumi with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jackson-Akiwumi, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Jackson-Akiwumi's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace