law provided an adequate tort remedy for malicious prosecution, the claim was barred by Parrott. Id. at 751. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to escape the conclusion that if Newsome were decided today, it would have come out differently. Does that mean that Whitlock overruled Newsome? Whitlock mentioned Newsome only once, in passing, and it cited a passage in Newsome dealing with a different issue. See 682 F.3d at 583-84. Given its treatment (or non-treatment) of Newsome, it is debatable whether Whitlock technically overruled Newsome. As the Seventh Circuit recently cautioned: “That’s not how precedent works. In this circuit it takes a circulation to the full court under Circuit Rule 40(e) for one panel to overrule another.” Iqbal v. Patel, 780 F.3d 728, 729 (7th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>). There was no Circuit Rule 40(e) circulation
holding as much holding that an earlier precedential decision is binding precedent on later panels holding that asahi did not undermine an earlier first circuit decision that limited the stream of commerce theory holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision holding that a later seventh circuit decision could not have overruled an earlier decision without so much as citing it