William Joseph Bauer

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit circuit Retired 2025 · served 1974–2025 Appointed by Gerald Ford (Republican) 26 signed orders read

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

Signed rulings

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

Barrington Music Products, Inc. v. Music & Arts Center
18-2945 · 2019-05-22
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Barrington Music Products)) Denied

“The district court's denial of the Rule 59(e) motion is AFFIRMED.”

In re Devan Dennis and Tyeane Halbert (Halbert v. Dimas)
18-2899 & 18-2952 · 2019-06-27
Appeal (appellant (Illinois Dept. of Human Services / James T. Dimas)) Denied

“The orders of the bankruptcy court are AFFIRMED.”

United States v. Thomas M. Smith
18-3265 · 2019-07-11
Appeal (appellant (defendant Thomas M. Smith)) Denied

“As such the 24-month sentence was not plainly unreasonable, and is hereby AFFIRMED.”

United States v. Kyle D. Williams
17-3220 · 2018-04-10
Appeal (appellant (defendant Kyle D. Williams)) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the sentence is AFFIRMED.”

Risa Stegall v. Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security
18-2345 · 2019-12-04
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Risa Stegall)) Denied

“We find that the district court did not commit any reversible errors and AFFIRM the verdict and judgment in favor of defendant-appellee.”

United States v. Harry S. Barnes
· 1978-06-23
Appeal (appellant (defendant Harry S. Barnes)) Denied

“We hold that the evidence was more than sufficient as a matter of law to sustain the jury's finding that the defendant passed the orders with intent to defraud and knowledge that a material signature thereon was false. Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.”

Marshall Zeidman v. United States Parole Commission and Robert Elsea, Warden
· 1979-03-20
Appeal (appellant (petitioner Marshall Zeidman)) Denied

“We cannot agree, therefore, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the appellant's due process claim. ... Accordingly, we find no basis for holding that the new guidelines violated the ex post facto clause in this case. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.”

James Jones v. Local 520, International Union of Operating Engineers
· 1979-08-13
Appeal (appellants (Sec. 1981 plaintiffs)) Granted in part

“It follows that the district court has jurisdiction over Counts I and II under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343. ... Accordingly, we affirm the lower court's judgment on Count III. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.”

Lutheran Welfare Services of Illinois and United Christian Community Services v. National Labor Relations Board
· 1979-10-18
Petition for review (petitioners (employers LWSI and UCCS, resisting NLRB enforcement)) Granted

“In light of these and other indicia of Model Cities' control over labor relations at LWSI and UCCS, we must conclude that this case falls squarely within the Board's 'joint employer' doctrine. Accordingly, we deny enforcement of the Board's June 19, 1978 order. Enforcement Denied.”

Master Printers Association v. Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor
· 1983-01-31
Appeal (appellant (Master Printers Association)) Denied

“In rendering its memorandum opinion the district court thoroughly and carefully analyzed all the issues raised in this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm and adopt the excellent opinion of the district court, which is reported at 532 F.Supp. 1140.”

Mac R. Perlman, Sylvia Perlman, and Alan J. Pearlman v. Permonite Manufacturing Co.
· 1984-06-19
Appeal (appellants (dissenting shareholders)) Denied

“We agree with each of these determinations. ... Accordingly, we affirm the district court judgment and adopt its opinion as the opinion of this court. Affirmed.”

Alfred B. Shapiro and Gregory J. Wentz v. Drug Enforcement Administration
· 1985-05-28
Appeal (appellants (FOIA/Privacy Act requesters Shapiro and Wentz)) Denied

“We therefore affirm the district court's holding that the information requested by plaintiffs Shapiro and Wentz is exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act and its denial of Wentz's request for correction of the allegedly inaccurate information.”

A historical record

Judge Bauer 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.