Case law

International Insurance v. Caja Nacional De Ahorro Y Seguro

293 F.3d 378 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 10, 2002

If Caja established this prima facie case, the burden going forward “would shift to the plaintiff [i.e., IIC] to produce evidence establishing that the foreign state is not entitled to immunity. … While we are not limiting what con- stitutes proof under all circumstances, the naked assertions of Caja’s attorneys are clearly insufficient to establish that Caja is wholly-owned by Argentina.

Pearl Spence, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Jerome W. Spence, Deceased v. Henry D. Staras

507 F.2d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 16, 1974

Staras, Superintendent of the hospital, also contends that he is immune from suit under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, Ill.Rev. Stat. Ch. 85, §§ 2-201, 6-107. However, as this court pointed out in McLaughlin v. … Since the defendants here are neither legislators nor judges, they retain “only a qualified immunity, dependent on good faith action.” Id.

Larry T. England v. Robert Farley

48 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 1, 1995

We need not make this determination because under the doctrine of qualified immunity the defendant cannot be held liable. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages for discretionary acts that do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Anderson v.

Cydney A. Crue, John M. McKinn Debbie A. Reese, Brenda M. Farnell, Frederick E. Hoxie, Stephen Kaufman, and Philip W. Phillips v. Michael Aiken

370 F.3d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2004

Even if the court were correct that NTEU applied to this case and that balance tipped in favor of the plaintiffs, qualified immunity applies to Chancellor Aiken. … Assuming there were a constitutional violation, in order to remove the cloak of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs have the burden of proof to show that the law prohibiting Chancellor Aiken’s conduct was “clearly established

Garrett Brock Trapnell v. James D. Riggsby Jerry Williford Ronald Thompson J. Brown and David Dalcher

622 F.2d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 29, 1980

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … Aikens does not demonstrate that Trapnell had a “clearly established” right to the photos involved in this case.

Darnell Tolliver v. City of Chicago

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 12, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Qualified  immunity  applies  to  the  actions  of  Officers Sobieraj and Debose here. 

Matthew Dykema v. Michael Skoumal

261 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2001

Dykema maintains that this is an interlocutory appeal since Skoumal’s claim of qualified immunity was denied by the district court on a motion for summary judgment because the court found that there were disputed issues of … However, Skoumal has conceded Dykema’s version of the facts and challenges only whether those conceded facts establish a violation of clearly established law. See Coady v.

Nathaniel Pryor v. Michael Corrigan

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2024

federal right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … established case law that the leg sweep and tackle here were impermissible beyond debate, the dis- trict court properly granted Corrigan qualified immunity on this portion of Pryor’s excessive force claim.

Nathaniel Pryor v. Michael Corrigan

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2024

federal right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … established case law that the leg sweep and tackle here were impermissible beyond debate, the dis- trict court properly granted Corrigan qualified immunity on this portion of Pryor’s excessive force claim.

Hyung Koh v. Sung Kim

933 F.3d 836 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2019

right was “clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … Ustich and Graf Turning now to Ustich and Graf’s appeal, they argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in June 2009 that their conduct during Mr.

David L. Rowe v. John Hurley, Lenny Graves, Jim Weyman

59 F.3d 173 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 22, 1995

May 23, 1995), we affirm the district court's decision. 6 The prison officials claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … and (2) were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time in question?" Wilson v. Formigoni, 42 F.3d 1060, 1064 (7th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted).

Stephen Buckley, Plaintiff-Appellee--Cross-Appellant v. J. Michael Fitzsimmons, Defendants-Appellants--Cross-Appellees

952 F.2d 965 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 2, 1992

So we remarked in Millspaugh, 937 F.2d at 1175 : “the dividing line between absolute and qualified immunity is whether the injury depends on the judicial decision. … This approach, if adopted, would sever the link between immunities in § 1983 actions and those in Bivens actions established by cases such as Butz v.

Nathaniel Pryor v. Michael Corrigan

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2024

federal right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … established case law that the leg sweep and tackle here were impermissible beyond debate, the dis- trict court properly granted Corrigan qualified immunity on this portion of Pryor’s excessive force claim.

Susan Ulichny v. Merton Community School District, Mark Flynn, Timothy F. O'Neill

249 F.3d 686 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 7, 2001

Qualified Immunity Finally, we hold that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 18 *706 In Hinnen v. … That clearly established right must be one established in a particularized sense. This requires more than a general violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Rod Gustafson and Javier Cornejo v. Arthur Jones and Philip Arreola

290 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 17, 2002

clearly established law that would have put them on notice of this fact in November of 1993. … The law to that extent was clearly established, and thus the district court properly denied qualified immunity to the defendants.

Al-Alamin v. Gramley

926 F.2d 680 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 6, 1991

The court recognized that qualified immunity would shield the Dixon officials from liability in their individual capacities if they did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … It maintained its position that the plaintiffs’ first amendment right was clearly established by prior case law. See R.71 at 6.

Tobin for Governor v. Illinois State Board of Elections

268 F.3d 517 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 5, 2001

See, e.g., Cleavinger, 474 U.S. at 199-200 (discussing the common- law history of judicial immunity and stating that "’[f]ew doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability … /9 In two cases, the Ninth Circuit has been asked to determine whether the members of an election board enjoyed qualified immunity. See Charfauros v.

Anthony Thomas v. Anthony Ramos, Margaret Thompson, Leona Gregory, David Essenpreis, and Yolande Williams

130 F.3d 754 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 3, 1998

The trial court further concluded that Ramos was entitled to qualified immunity from Thomas’s Eighth Amendment claim because the right to outdoor exercise was not “clearly established” at the time Ramos allegedly denied him … Williams, 71 F.3d at 1248 . *763 “Public officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Ross v. United States

910 F.2d 1422 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 10, 1990

Specifically, she claims that the district court erred in dismissing the substance of her complaint and in ruling that Deputy Johnson was entitled to qualified immunity. … Because Deputy Johnson acted under the color of state law to cause this deprivation, he is liable unless he is entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law was not clearly established at the time of the accident

Ahmmad Pourghoraishi v. Flying J, Incorporated, Steve Lindgren, Larry Williams, City of Gary, Indiana, Nakon Security, Incorporated

449 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 25, 2006

Williams asserts that he had probable cause to arrest Pourgho-raishi on both charges, and, even if he did not, he was entitled to qualified immunity on both claims. … If so, we move on to inquire whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged injury; that is, whether a reasonable officer would have known that his actions were unconstitutional.