Case law

Brenda Jones v. Brent York

34 F.4th 550 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 16, 2022

On appeal, she explains, “when York signed the crim- inal complaint, he violated [her] clearly established Fourth Amendment constitutional right to be free from legal process without probable cause.” … Id. at 326; see also Canen, 847 F.3d 407 at 415 (“It is long-established that wit- nesses enjoy absolute immunity.”); Stinson v.

Sidney and Julia Clark, and Cross-Appellees v. Universal Builders, Inc., and Cross-Appellants

706 F.2d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 19, 1983

We find that this conclusion is not clearly erroneous. … equal protection under the law or their rights to equal privileges and immunities under the law.”

Derek Kramer v. William Pollard

497 F. App'x 639 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 5, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from facing suits for damages when their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. See Harlow v. … Once a defendant asserts a qualified- immunity defense, the plaintiff has the burden to establish that the defendant’s action violated a clearly established right. See Estate of Escobedo v.

Barbara Tully v. Paul Okeson

78 F.4th 377 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2023

Specifically, “[i]t hits onerous procedural requirements which effectively handicap exercise of the franchise by those claiming the constitutional immunity.” … Any material requirement imposed upon the federal voter solely because of his refusal to waive the consti- tutional immunity subverts the effectiveness of the Twenty- fourth Amendment and must fall under its ban.” Id.

United States v. Leonard Patrick

542 F.2d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 23, 1976

Our research has uncovered no cases which clearly resolve the particular challenge brought herein to §§ 6002-6003 immunity. … not allow use of the immunized testimony to establish the basis for prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (c) and that Patrick’s challenge to his immunity order on Fifth Amendment grounds was improper.

United States v. Philip Hollinger

553 F.2d 535 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 3, 1977

The record clearly establishes that the second conference was primarily concerned with review of the defense-tendered instructions. … It has long been established that a district judge has no discretion to deny a request by the United States Attorney that a witness be granted immunity, so long as the request is proper in form.

Jose Santiago, Cross-Appellee v. Michael P. Lane, Cross-Appellants

894 F.2d 218 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 1990

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Hence, the defense of qualified immunity is unavailable to the defendants here. III.

Joseph Rossi v. City of Chicago

790 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2015

The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants because Rossi had not demonstrated that the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right as is required to prevail on a § 1983 claim. … For this reason, Rossi failed to establish a violation of his constitutional right to judicial access and Mathews is shielded from liability by qualified immunity. B.

Citadel Securities LLC v. Chicago Board Options Exchange

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 11, 2015

Defendants correctly note that immunity is a different is‐ sue  than  administrative  exhaustion.  The  question  of  SRO  immunity is focused on the nature of defendants’ action.  … Plaintiffs have not clearly shown that the SEC’s adminis‐ trative procedure is futile or inadequate to prevent irrepara‐ ble  injury. 

United States v. Kuehn

562 F.2d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 19, 1977

a state prosecution interferes with that immunity. … (Citations omitted.) 401 U.S. at 46 , 91 S.Ct. at 751 . 17 In Dombrowski, as the Younger Court pointed out, special circumstances of prosecutorial harassment and bad faith established the kind of irreparable injury to the

Sampson, Jacob v. Federal Republic

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 23, 2001

The Claims Conference administers the Hardship Fund, but its sole role is to determine whether the claimants meet the German guidelines--not to differentiate among qualified applicants in the amount of payment. … Congress clearly expressed such an intent.").

Mustafa-El Ajala v. Craig Tom

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2016

 not shown that their conduct violated clearly  established law in 2007.  … On appeal Ajala argues that the district court erred in granting qualified  immunity to the Defendants because, he says, it was clearly established by 2007 that  using restraints to inflict prolonged, unnecessary pain on 

Stephen S. Marozsan v. United States of America

90 F.3d 1284 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 6, 1996

Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991); it does not qualify, as a bill of attainder, see Dehainaut v. … ”; 2) establish a causal connection between the conduct at issue and the injury;- and 3) show that a favorable judicial decision would likely, rather than speculatively, redress the injury.

Mahnke v. Garrigan

428 F. App'x 630 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2011

Without ruling on the propriety of the seizure, the district court granted the deputy summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. We affirm the judgment, but on the ground that the deputy’s conduct was lawful. … Still, the district court concluded, Garrigan could not reasonably have known that he was violating the Fourth Amendment by seizing April and thus was shielded from liability by the defense of qualified immunity.

Williams v. Vasquez

62 F. App'x 686 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 1, 2003

We previously have explained the basis for this rule: This preclusion does not arise from the doctrine of qualified immunity, but rather from the fact that a person arrested with probable cause cannot cry false arrest. … Williams' arrest, he was entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer faced with the same situation could have believed that there was probable cause to arrest Mr. Williams for DUI. Id. at 8. .

Del Raine v. Williford

32 F.3d 1024 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 9, 1994

The Seventh Circuit explained: In its judgment, the district court said it could not “find the right plaintiffs asserted under the facts of this ease to have been clearly established in 1982 to remove defendants’ qualified … In Vaughan , the Ninth Circuit refused to grant summary judgment on the question of qualified immunity insofar as there were clearly established standards that illustrated the parameters of a rectal search.

Hunt v. Jaglowski

926 F.2d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 7, 1991

If a [prosecutor’s] function was quasi-judicial, the [prosecutor] enjoys absolute immunity. If the function was administrative or investigatory, the [prosecutor] enjoys only qualified immunity.” Henderson v. … Under Illinois law, “it is a familiar and firmly established principle that the State’s Attorney, as a member of the executive branch of government, is vested with exclusive discretion in the initiation and management of

Hampton v. City of Chicago

484 F.2d 602 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 24, 1973

“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as this Court recognized when it adopted the doctrine … The alleged conduct of Assistant State’s Attorneys Sorosky and Meltreger clearly exceeded the scope of their quasi-judicial immunity.

Brian Hope v. Commissioner of Indiana Depart

9 F.4th 513 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 16, 2021

SORA establishes both requirements and restrictions for qualifying sex offenders, and it authorizes the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) to collect and publish data about them. Ind. Code § 11-8-2-13(b). … In one respect, his case is like that of a veteran who did not yet live in New Mexico as of the qualifying eligibility date the state established for a special tax break for veterans. Hooper.

Enahoro, Anthony v. Abubakar, Abdulsalam

408 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 23, 2005

The party claiming FSIA immunity bears the initial burden of proof of establishing a prima facie case that it satisfies the FSIA’s definition of a foreign state. … Cir. 1996) (“An individual can qualify as an ‘agency or instrumentality of a foreign state’ ” when acting in his official capacity on behalf of the state.); Chuidian v.