eve of trial after such a delay.”). The court repeated its finding of waiver in addressing Plaintiff-Appellant’s post-verdict motion to amend the jury’s verdict, stating that “[a]s in Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 403 (7th Cir.2007), plaintiff waived any right to a Fourth Amendment claim premised on an objectively reasonable standard by failing to pursue such a claim on a timely basis.” Slip Op. at 5 (W.D.Wis. May 30, 2013), ECF No. 705. What the court meant by waiver is difficult to define sharply, in part because “waiver is a flexible concept with no definite and rigid meaning” that is “generally define 8 (7th Cir.1992) (“In general, we will not consider an argument which is presented for the first time on appeal.”); Geva v. Leo Burnett Co., 931 F.2d 1220, 1225 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Oates v. Discovery Zone, 116 F.3d 1161, 1168
holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding that an issue not properly preserved below in the district court is generally waived holding that a claim is not properly before the appellate court because it is axiomatic that arguments not raised below are waived on appeal holding that argument offered in defense of decision below had been waived when not raised below holding an issue not raised to the family court is not preserved for appellate review