In re Lisse, s. 18-1866 & 18-1889
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Easterbrook, Circuit Judge, in chambers. |
| Citation | 905 F.3d 495 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF: Steven Robert LISSE, Debtor. Appeals Of: Wendy Alison Nora |
| Docket Number | Nos. 18-1866 & 18-1889,s. 18-1866 & 18-1889 |
| Decision Date | 28 September 2018 |
905 F.3d 495
IN THE MATTER OF: Steven Robert LISSE, Debtor.
Appeals Of: Wendy Alison Nora
Nos. 18-1866 & 18-1889
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 28, 2018
Easterbrook, Circuit Judge, in chambers.
Appellant has submitted a document styled "Request for Judicial Notice." In my capacity as motions judge, I deny this and publish a brief explanation in the hope of forestalling other, similar applications, which recently have increased in frequency.
Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a court to take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact that is "not subject to reasonable dispute" because it:
(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or
(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
The "Request" asks the court to take judicial notice of four documents. Two of them are orders entered by a state court in Wisconsin. They are public records and appropriate subjects of judicial notice. See Menominee Indian Tribe v. Thompson , 161 F.3d 449, 456 (7th Cir. 1998) ; Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(7).
The third is a power of attorney filed in state court. The fact that a document is in a state court’s record does not make it an appropriate subject of notice, however, because its provenance may be disputed. Is it authentic? See Rules 901 to 903. Are the four signatures real or forged? (The signature lines say that all
four signers are officers of Bank of America; none is a party to this proceeding.) Is it the original, or perhaps a duplicate admissible under Rule 1003? Is the document even relevant? See Rule 402. If the power of attorney had been submitted in this proceeding it would not be subject to judicial notice. It does not get a privileged status because it was filed in a state suit.
The fourth document is a lawyer’s motion filed in the same state case. That document is not subject to judicial notice because it is not evidence of an adjudicative fact. A lawyer’s appellate brief in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durnell v. Holcomb, 3:19-cv-00129-RLY-MPB
...to judicial notice. Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson , 161 F.3d 449, 456 (7th Cir. 1998) ; see also Matter of Lisse , 905 F.3d 495, 496 (7th Cir. 2018) (Easterbrook, J., in chambers).3 Although the court was discussing Rooker - Feldman , its analysis is equally persuasive wit......
-
Rodriguez-Penton v. United States, 15-6306
...likely lose. Even with credit for time served, Rodriguez-Penton could be sentenced to more time than under his initial plea and still 905 F.3d 495face the possibility of deportation. Counsel asserts that Rodriguez-Penton has been made adequately aware of the possible risks here, but there i......
-
Branko PRPA MD LLC v. Ryan (In re Ryan), Case No. 19-29833-beh
...matters of public record available via an online database commonly known as CCAP (Consolidated Court Automation Programs). In re Lisse , 905 F.3d 495, 496 (7th Cir. 2018). AP-ECF Doc. No. 52-2, Exhibit I, at 67. The Court need not consider Exhibit I, however, because under the applicable in......
-
Matter Of Lisse, s. 18-1866 & 18-1889
...Judge Easterbrook (as motions judge) published an opinion explaining why the requests were procedurally improper. In re Appeals of Nora , 905 F.3d 495, 497 (7th Cir. 2018) ("The right place to propose judicial notice, once a case is in a court of appeals, is in a brief.... There's no need t......
-
Durnell v. Holcomb, No. 3:19-cv-00129-RLY-MPB
...to judicial notice. Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson , 161 F.3d 449, 456 (7th Cir. 1998) ; see also Matter of Lisse , 905 F.3d 495, 496 (7th Cir. 2018) (Easterbrook, J., in chambers).3 Although the court was discussing Rooker - Feldman , its analysis is equally persuasive wit......
-
Rodriguez-Penton v. United States, No. 15-6306
...likely lose. Even with credit for time served, Rodriguez-Penton could be sentenced to more time than under his initial plea and still 905 F.3d 495face the possibility of deportation. Counsel asserts that Rodriguez-Penton has been made adequately aware of the possible risks here, but there i......
-
Branko PRPA MD LLC v. Ryan (In re Ryan), Case No. 19-29833-beh
...matters of public record available via an online database commonly known as CCAP (Consolidated Court Automation Programs). In re Lisse , 905 F.3d 495, 496 (7th Cir. 2018). AP-ECF Doc. No. 52-2, Exhibit I, at 67. The Court need not consider Exhibit I, however, because under the applicable in......
-
Matter Of Lisse, Nos. 18-1866 & 18-1889
...Judge Easterbrook (as motions judge) published an opinion explaining why the requests were procedurally improper. In re Appeals of Nora , 905 F.3d 495, 497 (7th Cir. 2018) ("The right place to propose judicial notice, once a case is in a court of appeals, is in a brief.... There's no need t......