Gary Betts v. Boone County, Illinois: Date Argued: February 13th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1685
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsShow Notes
Case Summary: In the case of Gary Betts v. Boone County, Illinois (Docket No. 25-1685), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 13, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows: The litigation stems from the 1977 murder of Louise Betts, whose remains were believed by her family to have been handled and buried intact by the then-Boone County Coroner, Wesley Hyland. In November 2022, forty-four years after the burial, the Boone County Coroner’s Office revealed that the late Coroner Hyland had secretly and illegally retained Louise Betts' skull, along with the remains of other individuals, in his private possession. Upon learning of this discovery, the plaintiffs, Gary and Earl Betts, were forced to disinter their sister's remains to reunite them with the recovered skull and provide her with a complete and proper burial. The plaintiffs filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Boone County and the current Coroner, alleging that the unauthorized retention of the remains constituted an unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. A primary factual and legal issue at the trial level was whether Illinois law recognizes a "property interest" in a dead body sufficient to trigger federal constitutional protections. The district court initially found that while Illinois law treats a dead body as "quasi-property" for the purpose of burial rights, the plaintiffs had standing to sue because the injury—the interference with their right to possess the remains—accrued only upon the discovery of the coroner's secret misconduct. In March 2025, however, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish Monell liability because the late coroner’s secret, illegal actions did not constitute an "official policy or widespread custom" of Boone County. The court reasoned that because Hyland’s actions were hidden and would have resulted in his immediate removal if known, his conduct was a "departure from policy" rather than an implementation of one. The current appeal, docketed as 25-1685, challenges this dismissal, with the plaintiffs arguing that as the elected Coroner, Hyland was the final policymaker for the county regarding the disposition of human remains, making his actions attributable to the municipality. During the oral arguments on February 13, 2026, the Seventh Circuit panel focused on whether a single official's "discretionary decision" to break the law can ever establish municipal liability if that official is the highest-ranking authority in their specific department.
More from Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of Appeals
Case Summary: In the case of Yinnv Liu v. Monthly (Docket No. 25-2074), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 20, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows: Fact Summary The litigation is a complex commercial and intellectual property dispute involving Yinnv Liu (the plaintiff/appellant) and the defendant company Monthly (associated with Monthly.com), along with several other entities including Joybuy. The core factual conflict centers on a breach of contract and copyright infringement claim related to online educational content and digital assets. Monthly operates a platform that hosts creative classes and "learning experiences" taught by high-profile instructors. A primary issue in the record involves the ownership and distribution rights of specific instructional materials. The plaintiff alleges that Monthly and its partner entities, such as Joybuy, exceeded the scope of their licensing agreements by sub-licensing or distributing her proprietary content across international markets without proper authorization or compensation. The factual background includes a dispute over digital rights management (DRM) and the "terms of service" that govern how independent creators interact with the Monthly platform. Monthly contends that the plaintiff voluntarily entered into a broad "Master Services Agreement" that granted the company extensive rights to adapt and monetize the content in exchange for a percentage of subscription revenue. In early 2025, a district court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the plain language of the electronic contracts signed by the plaintiff shielded the companies from the majority of the claims regarding unauthorized international distribution. The current appeal, docketed as 25-2074, challenges that interpretation. The appellant argues that the contracts were unconscionable adhesion contracts—meaning they were presented on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis with grossly one-sided terms that a reasonable creator would not have knowingly accepted. The appellate record also scrutinizes whether the defendants provided an accurate accounting of the revenues generated from the plaintiff's specific content modules, a factual point that underpins the plaintiff’s claim for damages. During the oral arguments on February 20, 2026, the Seventh Circuit panel focused on the "clickwrap" nature of the agreement and whether the specific clauses allowing for "global sub-licensing" were sufficiently conspicuous to be enforceable under Illinois and federal law.
In the case of Dickerson v. BPP PCV Owners LLC (Docket No. 24-3147), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on February 20, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows: The litigation was initiated by Gloria D. Dickerson, a pro se plaintiff and resident of Peter Cooper Village (PCV) in Manhattan, against the property owner, BPP PCV Owners LLC (a joint venture involving Blackstone and Ivanhoé Cambridge). The core of the factual dispute involves allegations of housing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation related to the plaintiff's tenancy. Dickerson, a long-term resident, alleged that the management company engaged in discriminatory practices that affected her right to quiet enjoyment and equal access to housing services. A significant portion of the lower court record focused on procedural hurdles; the defendant moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff's First Amended Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was "vague and conclusory" regarding specific civil rights violations. In early 2024, the district court granted the motion to dismiss but gave the plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. A factual "comedy of errors" ensued when the pro se plaintiff attempted to file the new complaint at the wrong physical address in Manhattan (80 Worth Street), leading the court to provide additional time and guidance on proper filing procedures. The case was eventually dismissed with prejudice by the District Court for the Southern District of New York after it found that the plaintiff’s subsequent filings still failed to satisfy the federal pleading standards, particularly the "Five Ws" (who, what, where, when, and why) required to establish a plausible claim of discrimination. The current appeal, docketed as 24-3147, challenges that final dismissal. The plaintiff argues that the trial court applied an overly stringent standard to her pro se filings and ignored the substantive evidence of harassment she provided. During the oral arguments on February 20, 2026, the Second Circuit panel examined whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff further opportunities to amend her complaint and whether the existing record contained sufficient factual "nuggets" to warrant a trial on the merits. The defense maintained that BPP PCV Owners LLC acted within its rights as a landlord and that the plaintiff's grievances did not rise to the level of federal civil rights violations or actionable breaches of the lease agreement.
In the case of Immanuel Baptist Church v. City of Chicago (Docket No. 25-1951), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 20, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows: The litigation was initiated by Immanuel Baptist Church, a small congregation that had been leasing property at 1443 West Roosevelt Road in Chicago since 2011. The dispute began in 2016 when the church attempted to purchase the leased property, but its lender required confirmation from the City that the building complied with local zoning and parking ordinances. Under the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, religious assemblies were classified under a "Parking Group" requiring one off-street parking space for every eight seats of occupancy, which meant the church needed 19 dedicated spaces it did not possess. The church alleged that the City’s enforcement was discriminatory because other secular assembly uses, such as public libraries and live theater venues of similar size, were exempt from these specific off-street parking requirements. The factual record shows that after the church filed suit, the City passed a new ordinance in 2019 that reduced the church's specific parking requirement to zero, but the church argued the damage had already been done. The church contended that the City’s initial refusal and the resulting two-year delay caused it to lose the opportunity to purchase an adjacent building and forced it to pay higher prices and insurance premiums, constituting a "substantial burden" on its religious exercise. In late 2023, a district court ruled in favor of the church on the substantial burden claim under RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) but limited the damages to approximately $14,590 for specific out-of-pocket expenses. The current appeal, docketed as 25-1951, involves a challenge to the district court's final judgment, specifically regarding the calculation of damages and the dismissal of the church's "equal terms" claims. During the oral arguments on February 20, 2026, the Seventh Circuit panel examined whether the City’s application of "subjective" criteria during the zoning review process triggered the individualized assessment protections of federal law.
Case Summary: Gemini said In the case of Damri v. LivePerson, Inc. (Docket No. 25-964), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on February 20, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows: Fact Summary The litigation is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of investors who purchased shares of LivePerson, Inc., a conversational AI company, between May 2022 and early 2024. The core factual dispute involves the company’s February 2022 acquisition of WildHealth, a precision medicine startup, for approximately $150 million. Plaintiffs allege that LivePerson and its executives made false and misleading statements regarding the financial health and growth prospects of WildHealth while simultaneously implementing significant capital cuts and layoffs that hindered the subsidiary's ability to generate revenue. A central factual element of the complaint is the disclosure in early 2023 that Medicare reimbursements for a discontinued WildHealth COVID-19 testing program had been suspended, an event plaintiffs claim was known but withheld from investors to artificially inflate the stock price. The factual record highlights a massive decline in LivePerson's market value, with the share price falling over 57% on March 16, 2023, following the company's admission of "material weaknesses" in its internal controls over financial reporting. In March 2025, the district court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide specific facts demonstrating "scienter"—the intent to deceive—or that the executives’ upbeat statements about WildHealth lacked a reasonable basis at the time they were made. The appeal, docketed as 25-964, challenges this dismissal, with the appellant arguing that the trial court ignored testimony from confidential witnesses who alleged that the company’s internal metrics directly contradicted its public "business as usual" narrative. During the oral arguments on February 20, 2026, the Second Circuit panel examined whether the company had a duty to disclose the Medicare suspension earlier and whether the executives' stock sales during the class period provided a sufficient motive for the alleged fraud. The court also scrutinized whether the "material weakness" in internal controls, once admitted, provided retroactive evidence that the company's previous financial statements were factually unreliable.