Case law

Roger Fairley and Richard Gackowski v. Evan Fermaint, Noberto Bercasio, and Fred Coffey

482 F.3d 897 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2007

It was clearly established long before the events of which plaintiffs complain that state actors may not assault witnesses in federal litigation. … Only if the answer is affirmative does the court inquire whether the official enjoys qualified immunity.

Nicholas C. Omdahl, Roger C. Omdahl, and Linda Omdahl v. David E. Lindholm and Michael G. Stoffel

170 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 15, 1999

It is also the key dispute as to whether the Omdahls established the existence of an alleged constitutional violation and, thus, whether they can successfully refute the qualified immunity defense. … The qualified immunity defense places the burden of establishing the existence of the alleged constitutional violation on the Omdahls. See Clash, 77 F.3d at 1047 .

Paul Knox v. Kenneth L. McGinnis and Thomas Roth

998 F.2d 1405 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 20, 1993

According to Knox, the qualified immunity defense “is available to protect defendant[s] only as far as case law establishes that th[e] use is constitutional. Beyond these limits, qualified immunity does not apply.” … Knox misunderstands the .qualified immunity doctrine. The question is not whether the conduct is clearly constitutional, but whether it is clearly unconstitutional.

Reed v. Kemper

673 F. App'x 533 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 12, 2016

In this court Reed contends that Kemper is not entitled to qualified immunity. He argues that Turner clearly establishes that the rationale articulated in Kemper’s affidavit is not related to peno-logical objectives. … Michelle Bones, however, is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly established law. Complaint examiners follow the law so long as they do their job in examining complaints in good faith.

William Hurt v. Matthew Wise

880 F.3d 831 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2018

of  clearly  established  law.  … Even if, in hindsight, it appears that probable cause  was lacking, qualified immunity is still available if the arrest‐ ing officers “reasonabl[y] … could have believed the arrest to  be  lawful,  in  light  of  clearly 

Laura Ann Juriss v. Paul McGowan and Russell Stanfield, Jointly and Severally

957 F.2d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 1992

In evaluating this argument, we examine whether the right McGowan allegedly violated was “clearly established in a particularized sense.” Cleveland-Perdue v. … We therefore reject his first argument for qualified immunity.

Cygnar v. City of Chicago

865 F.2d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 4, 1989

MATHIS’S QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (RACE DISCRIMINATION) Mathis finally contends that he is immune from damages under the doctrine of qualified “good faith” immunity set forth in Harlow v. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violated “clearly

Anthony Zimmerman v. Jeffrey Doran

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 24, 2015

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, officials are shielded from civil liability “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established  statutory  or  constitutional  rights  of  which  a reasonable person  … We have held that “‘[c]onsulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity from being sued for false arrest,  but  it  goes  far  to  establish  qualified  immunity.

Kathryn M. Zorzi v. County of Putnam, Philip H. Hansen, Former Sheriff of Putnam County, Donald Maggi, Sheriff of Putnam County

30 F.3d 885 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Rather, he claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because count two does not set forth a substantive due process violation, or at least not one that is clearly established.

Joann Cavalieri, as Plenary Guardian of the Estate of Steven Cavalieri, a Disabled Person v. Donald Shepard

321 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 20, 2003

asserting was not clearly established at the time of these events. … Ryan, 957 F.2d 402, 406 (7th Cir.1992), was clearly established prior to 1998.

Howell v. Smith

853 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff demonstrates that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established” at the … established law.”

Antonio Smith v. John Kind

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-

Antonio Smith v. John Kind

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 10, 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-

Dwayne Volkman v. Lee Ryker

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 2, 2013

Qualified Immunity and “Clearly Established” Rights In  addition  to  ruling  against  Volkman  outright  on  the issue of constitutional protection, the district court found that the  defendants  were  shielded  by … Governmental  actors  performing  discretionary  functions enjoy “qualified immunity,” meaning that they are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Charles Brumitt v. Sam Smith

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 20, 2024

circumstances was ‘clearly established.’” … denying qualified immunity.

Diane M. Wilson v. Ugo Formigoni, Carlos Deeb and Bruce Wilosinski

42 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 14, 1994

The court found, however, that it was not clearly established that Youngberg applied to those voluntary patients who were in reality committed involuntarily. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Earnise Pam v. City of Evansville

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2025

The Qualified Immunity Test Qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits unless the plaintiff can show (1) the official violated his constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) the right was clearly established … Application of the Clearly Established Prong We turn to the application of clearly established law.

Paul Burritt v. Lisa Ditlefsen

807 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 30, 2015

“Qualified immunity protects officers performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate dearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would … Once qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that his or her rights were violated and that the law concerning the proffered right “was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct

Mirek Magdziak, Administrator of the Estate of Tadeusz Glodek, Deceased v. David Byrd

96 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 27, 1996

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity protects government agents ‘“from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Once a defendant has raised the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the right he or she is asserting was clearly established at the relevant time.

Paul Knox v. Deborah Smith

342 F.3d 651 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 22, 2003

Further the district court concluded that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that to request a warrant based on evidence known to be false or recklessly inaccurate would violate … Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity defense is designed to protect government agents “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights