Ian H. Levin
How Judge Levin rules, drawn from 3 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Levin no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Levin
Ian H. Levin served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Illinois from 1997 until his retirement in 2006. Before joining the federal bench, he practiced law and served as a Cook County Circuit Court judge. He earned degrees from DePaul University and DePaul University College of Law.
How Judge Levin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Vadeboncoeur v. Callahan, Levin affirmed the denial of Social Security benefits. He found substantial evidence for the ALJ’s conclusion that the claimant could perform past assembly work as generally performed, relying in part on vocational expert testimony that her counsel had not challenged at the hearing.
“There was ‘substantial evidence’ of record to support the ALJ finding that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work as a sedentary level product hand assembler. The ALJ relied on the testimony of the vocational expert. ... The above testimony was unobjected to, and the plaintiff's attorney at the hearing did not cross-examine the vocational expert on this point(s).”
Procedural preferences
In Jones v. Scientific Colors, Levin declined to disqualify defense counsel over undercover investigators’ contacts with represented plaintiffs. The record did not establish that counsel directed the contacts or that any violation was willful and prejudicial.
“the court determines that the evidence in the record (and the state of the record) does not adequately establish that Mr. Kinsella or his firm either communicated or caused the undercover investigators to communicate with Plaintiffs ... so as to warrant the ‘drastic’ sanction of attorney disqualification.”
Cautions
In United States v. Benevolence International Foundation, Levin ordered Arnaout detained pending trial after finding a risk of flight. He considered the defendant’s family and contacts abroad, the limits of electronic monitoring, and proposed bond property owned by others, and found no conditions that would reasonably assure appearance.
“It also bears noting that electronic monitoring can't stop a person from fleeing. ... There thus would be no financial harm incurred by Defendant's family if he flees, which therefore creates significantly less incentive for the Defendant to stay”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed and the motion for remand denied.”
“This court has determined from the de novo review of the additional evidence submitted by Plaintiff that this evidence would not have a reasonable probability of causing a different disposition. ... In short, the subject evidence does not meet the definitional standard for materiality.”
“In view of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Sanctions and to Disqualify is denied.”
“the Court determines that the Government has met its burden that the Defendant is a risk of flight. And the Court finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required. Therefore, the Defendant is ordered detained pending trial.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The only docket subset enumerable for this judge is his duty-magistrate work: approving federal search warrants and handling civil-forfeiture seizure matters, which open and close the same day and carry no litigated motion timeline. This is not a representative picture of his decision docket, which consisted largely of Social Security appeals and civil cases handled on the parties' consent.
A historical record
Judge Levin no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.