Case law

Mildred A. Belluomini, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Harry Belluomini, Deceased v. United States

64 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 26, 1995

If one does not qualify as a loaning employer under this provision, there is an alternative test. … Because we believe that GSSC qualifies as a statutory loaning employer, we need not address the second test.

William Lund v. City of Rockford, Illinois

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2020

But even if Nieves did not apply retroactively, Lund still could not prevail, as the defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless they “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v.

Lawrence R. Alberti and Alberti International, Inc. v. Empresa Nicaraguense De La Carne and the Republic of Nicaragua

705 F.2d 250 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 18, 1983

It is uncontested that defendants bear the burden of establishing their immunity from this suit; therefore, the only issue is whether they have met this burden. … Once the foreign state has produced such prima facie evidence of immunity, the burden of going forward would shift to the plaintiff to produce evidence establishing that the foreign state is not entitled to immunity.

Anne Talignani v. United States

26 F.4th 379 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 10, 2022

The Act waives sovereign immunity for certain torts committed by “employee[s] of the Government.” … Michel was appointed … clearly establishes No. 21-1631 9 that he was a federal employee rather than an independent contractor.” Id. at 900.

Janay Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2024

No. 21-2683 claim—whether the law was clearly established when the de- fendant acted); see also 15A WRIGHT & MILLER at § 3911.2. … Church autonomy cases implicating immunity are even better candidates for interlocutory appeal than qualified im- munity cases.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Thomas F. Quinn

997 F.2d 287 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 21, 1993

“Their” resources is a vital qualifier. Just as a bank robber cannot use the loot to wage the best defense money can buy, United States v. … Failure to take an interlocutory appeal does not forfeit a defense of immunity, but it does restrict the claim to immunity from damages, as opposed to immunity from trial. Abel v.

United States v. William R. Palumbo

897 F.2d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 2, 1990

established [its] knowledge of Pa-lumbo’s involvement prior to the proffer.” … The district court accepted the government’s proof as sufficient to demonstrate that the indictment had been obtained on evidence wholly independent of the proffered statement: “The government clearly established [its] knowledge

Charles E. Egger v. Harlan C. Phillips

669 F.2d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 1, 1982

On appeal, defendant also argues that he was entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. In Butz v. … actions, as established by the evidence at trial.”

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.

Cortez Jones v. Victor Calloway

842 F.3d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 15, 2016

A federal court may not grant a state prisoner’s habeas petition unless the prisoner establishes that the state court’s adjudication of his claim was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … That requires us to decide wheth- er the Illinois Appellate Court’s decision was “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law—here the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to effective

Clark v. United States

691 F.2d 837 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 27, 1982

However, sovereign immunity does not preclude a determination of the merits of plaintiffs’ prayer for declaratory relief. II It is a well established rule that the United States cannot be sued without its consent. … Attracting and retaining qualified employees is a legitimate state objective that is rationally achieved by a retirement plan offering economic inducement in the form of a cost-of-living increase.

John S. Gore v. Indiana University

416 F.3d 590 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 25, 2005

The district court dismissed Gore’s age discrimination claim on sovereign immunity grounds. Gore does not appeal this ruling and rightly so. See Kimel v. … If the plaintiff can establish these four elements, the defendant has an opportunity to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action.

Abdi A. Sheik-Abdi v. Martin E. McClellan

37 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 14, 1994

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing first that Sheik-Abdi had failed to state a claim of constitutional violation, and, alternatively, that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Even if probable cause had not existed, the court noted that the officers would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Ronald R. Hutchinson v. William Proxmire and Morton Schwartz

579 F.2d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 26, 1978

The district court found that the combination of the absolute and qualified immunities completely shielded the defendants and granted their motion for summary judgment. We affirm. I. … whether the statements made in those communications are protected by the qualified privilege of the first amendment right to free speech.

Lawson v. Veruchi

637 F.3d 699 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 28, 2011

And if Veruchi had knowingly included this false informa- tion, then he also would not be entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established “that a warrant request violates the Fourth Amendment if the requesting … Gresbach, 526 F.3d 1008, 1013 (7th Cir. 2008) (“If the right was ‘clearly established,’ the official is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit.”).

Darryl Lewis v. Michael Downey

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 4, 2009

right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. … To remove from Shreffler the shield of qualified immu- nity, the right that he allegedly violated must be clearly established “ ‘in a particularized sense.’ ” Hill, 992 F.2d at 718 (quoting Juriss v.

Janay Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2024

No. 21-2683 claim—whether the law was clearly established when the de- fendant acted); see also 15A WRIGHT & MILLER at § 3911.2. … Church autonomy cases implicating immunity are even better candidates for interlocutory appeal than qualified im- munity cases.

Kelly Cherry v. University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents

265 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 11, 2001

. § 2000d-7(a), Congress clearly and unambiguously manifested its intent to condition the States’ receipt of Title IX funds on their waiver of immunity from suit. See Litman, 186 F.3d at 555 ; Pederson v. … Nor is the Board immune from Cherry’s Title IX claim because Congress clearly and unambiguously manifested its intent to condition the Board’s receipt of Title IX funds on its waiver of immunity, and in accepting such funding

Walter Lojuk v. Marjorie Quandt, Director of the Veterans Administration Hospital

706 F.2d 1456 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 19, 1983

Plaintiff’s general allegation that Quandt’s inadequate supervision “would lead to the violation of established constitutional rights of the patients,” is clearly insufficient to satisfy the personal responsibility requirement … Johnson, if entitled to any immunity at all, would be entitled at most to a qualified immunity which must be asserted as an affirmative defense by the defendant official. Gomez v.

Hamilton v. City of New Albany

698 F. App'x 821 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 16, 2017

immunity. … Thus, Brewer and Speights did not establish entitlement to qualified immunity. With that we turn to Hamilton’s claim against the City of New Albany under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.