Case law

Gill v. City of Milwaukee

850 F.3d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 7, 2017

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ … ” the Supreme Court has rejected in the qualified immunity context.

Antonio Smith v. John Kind

140 F.4th 359 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 30, 2025

But the Supreme Court has cautioned courts against reason- ing from broad principles when considering whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. See Kisela, 584 U.S. at 104. … Sheriff of Cook County, 993 F.3d 981, 988 (7th Cir. 2021) (“The prong-two clearly-established-law assess- ment does not require a case with identical factual circum- stances, lest qualified immunity become absolute immun-

Simmie Whitt v. Roger Smith

832 F.2d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 2, 1987

On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred .... … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. ... ...

Herbert L. Board v. Karl Farnham, Jr.

394 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2005

The Boards also claim that the constitutional right to oral hygiene supplies was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations, which would preclude a holding that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity … to qualified immunity on this claim.

Saffell v. Crews

183 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 6, 1999

That clearly established right must be one established in a particularized sense. This requires more than a general violation of the Fourth Amendment. … In the present case, Crews is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have rationally believed that the strip search was not unlawful in light of clearly established law and the information she possessed

Trevor Davis v. Christopher Allen

112 F.4th 487 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2024

The 3 Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the un- lawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time … Whether Deputy Allen Violated Clearly Established Law Depends on Disputed Facts The parties’ disputed facts are also inextricably bound up with the question of whether Deputy Allen violated clearly established

Adam Locke v. Mya Haessig

788 F.3d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2015

The defense of qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or consti- tutional rights of which a reasonable … Clearly Established Law in 2007 and 2008 If we accept the facts asserted by Locke, Haessig’s actions violated clearly established law at time of the violation.

Sandra T.E. v. Grindle

599 F.3d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2010

Grindle moved for summary judgment, claiming she was entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs had failed to estab- lish a violation of a clearly established right. … If they do, we ask whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of alleged violation. If so, the official is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit. See Michael C. v.

Ronald C. Denius v. Wayne Dunlap and Gary Sadler 1

209 F.3d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2000

If the rights were not clearly established, then the official is immune from suit and the claim is dismissed. See Richardson v. … for which Dunlap cannot receive qualified immunity.

Willie Flowers v. Nicholas Renfro

46 F.4th 631 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2022

“Because qualified immunity pro- tects the public officer from the expense and distraction of having to stand trial when the conduct in question did not vi- olate clearly established law, the unavailability of an immedi- … If a determination of qualified immunity in a summary judgment motion depends on the resolution of fact questions, the order denying qualified immunity generally is not appeal- able. Johnson v.

Stainback v. Dixon

569 F.3d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2009

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must address two issues: (1) whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … Only if a constitutional violation was established could a court address the second inquiry: whether the plaintiffs right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Baird v. Renbarger

576 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2009

Renbarger’s qualified immunity defense. … We therefore proceed to the second step of the qualified-immunity inquiry and ask whether the right at issue was clearly established: [T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established

Renee Gustafson v. William Adkins

803 F.3d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 16, 2015

Adkins is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity   Adkins  also  argues  that  the  district  court  erred  in  deny‐ ing his motion for summary judgment based on the defense  of qualified immunity.  … The  doctrine  of  qualified  immunity  “‘protects  govern‐ ment  officials  from  liability  for  civil  damages  when  their  conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con‐ stitutional  rights  of  which

Matrisciano v. Randle

569 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 26, 2009

entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the violation of a constitutional right was not clearly established at the relevant time, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Gregory May v. Michael F. Sheahan

226 F.3d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2000

Ill Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity that shields them from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … were clearly established at the time in question.

Ajala v. Tom

658 F. App'x 805 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2016

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 a

Mary Sallenger, as the Administrator of the Estate of Andrew B. Sallenger, Deceased v. Brian Oakes, James Zimmerman, and Jason Oliver

473 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2007

If the right was clearly established, the government actor is not entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the officers are still entitled to qualified immunity.

Donald Tangwall v. Thomas Stuckey

135 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 2, 1998

Again, we shall reserve addressing whether Detective Stuck-ey acted in violation of clearly established law and, alternatively, the merits of his qualified immunity defense until later in this opinion. … We hold that Stuckey did not violate a clearly established law and that he is entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal of the lawsuit against him. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED. 1 .

Jose Zurita v. Richard Hyde

665 F.3d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 22, 2011

Nevertheless, Biang would enjoy qualified immunity as to this claim if applicable law was not clearly established as of July 1, 2004. … In some cases, the district court may conclude that even under the facts presented by the defendant, the defendant’s actions violated clearly established law and qualified immunity does not apply.

Theresa Kitzman-Kelley, Guardian for and on Behalf of Melissa Kitzman-Kelley v. Donald Warner, Gary T. Morgan, and Gordon Johnson

203 F.3d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 10, 2000

Although clearly recognizing that the issue of qualified immunity may, in some instances, be resolved at the pleadings stage of the litigation, the district court determined that such an adjudication would be inappropriate … Qualified immunity protects government officials from monetary liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”