Case law

Johnny Jenkins and Middie Jackson v. Patrick Keating and Michael Murray

147 F.3d 577 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 16, 1998

Qualified immunity thus shields a police officer from § 1983 liability “if either the federal law he is asserted to have breached was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation or there exists no genuine … See Tangwall, 135 F.3d at 518 (“[Qualified immunity will shield a law enforcement officer ... from § 1983 liability ‘if a reasonable officer could have believed the [arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law

Michael J. Bakalis v. Jenni Golembeski, Mark R. Stephens, Merrill Becker

125 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1997

In the earlier appeal, we determined that the defendants could not assert the defense of qualified immunity. We held that the law was clearly established that Dr. … Summary judgment determinations “are appealable when they resolve a dispute concerning an ‘abstract issu[e] of law1 relating to qualified immunity, typically the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly

Burke H. Mendenhall and Plaza-Hill Realty Corporation v. Steven Goldsmith

59 F.3d 685 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 7, 1995

would not apply, Goldsmith was at a minimum protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a local official from civil liability for damages insofar as his behavior does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Hernandez Ex Rel. Hernandez v. Foster

657 F.3d 463 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields “government actors from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … When making a qualified immunity determination, a court considers (1) whether the plaintiff’s allegations show that the de- fendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at

Daniel S. Malinowski, Maureen S. Malinowski and Mathew T. Malinowski v. James Deluca and Donald Villaincourt

177 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 30, 1999

Traditionally, courts recognize two types of immunity — absolute and qualified. … Qualified immunity generally extends to “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person

Koger v. Bryan

523 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 24, 2008

A plaintiff seeking to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity must establish “that the law concerning the plaintiffs asserted right was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct occurred.” Id. … Those rights being clearly established at the relevant time, we conclude that the prison officials are not entitled to qualified immunity. F.

Kiddy-Brown, Sandra v. Blagojevich, Rod

408 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 13, 2005

However, the law of qualified immunity does not require a plaintiff to produce a case that is “directly on point” in order to show that a right is clearly established. Nabozny v. … We now turn to the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the law was clearly established when Ms. Kiddy-Brown’s employment was terminated in December 2003.

Jones, Mark D. v. Wilhelm, Ron

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2005

Since Wilhelm’s undisputed actions represent a viola- tion of clearly-established, constitutional rights, we find that Wilhelm enjoys no qualified immunity as to the Joneses’ warrant claim. … The Court there- fore held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Hansen v. Cannon

122 F. App'x 265 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 29, 2004

Second, was that right clearly established? Id. … Of course our order today does not establish Wolfe’s liability; we have decided only that the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the Hansens would establish a violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right

Lia Xiong v. Michael Wagner

700 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 19, 2012

In determining whether qualified immunity applies, “a court considers (1) whether the plaintiff’s allegations show that the defen- dant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was ‘clearly established’ … Thus, as long as RCHSD workers “could have believed [Thor’s removal] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information [they] possessed,” defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Mohammad Siddique v. Michael Laliberte

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2020

We elect to resolve this case on the second part of the qualified immunity test—whether the right was clearly established. This appeal, in its current iteration, involves only a First Amendment retaliation claim. … No such clearly established law exists.

John Sabo v. Megan Erickson

100 F.4th 880 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 30, 2024

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects gov- ernment officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … We held that the record- keeper was not entitled to qualified immunity because “closely analogous” cases, including Sample and Haygood, had clearly established the obligation of corrections officials—and recordkeepers in

Barbara Conner v. Rudy G. Reinhard

847 F.2d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 19, 1988

Qualified Immunity 1. General Principles The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages. … Officials cannot receive qualified immunity, however, if their conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person *388 would have known. Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Elizabeth Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Jess McDonald Director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, in His Individual Capacity, Edward Cotton, Director of the Division of Child Protection for Dcfs, in His Individual Capacity, Pearce Konold v. Central Baptist Children's Home & Family Services, a Not-For-Profit Corporation, Hudelson Baptist Children's Home, a Not-For-Profit Corporation, and Jess McDonald Director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (Dcfs), in His Individual Capacity

305 F.3d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2002

Konold's claims that Cavarretta, Lee TT and Valmonte clearly established the unconstitutionality of the credible evidence standard. … that the conduct of the DCFS employees in this case violated clearly established rights.

James R. Snyder v. Jack T. Nolen

380 F.3d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2004

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “for the performance of their discretionary functions when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right. See McGrath v. Gillis, 44 F.3d 567, 570 (7th Cir.1995).

Alvarado, Chad J. v. Litscher, Jon E.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2001

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and second, show that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Nanda, Navreet v. Moss, Gerald

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2005

ANALYSIS Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless their conduct violated “clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Nanda’s Clearly Established Rights Having found that Dean Moss’s alleged actions violated Dr. Nanda’s constitutional rights, Dean Moss would still be entitled to qualified immunity if Dr.

Jeffrey J. Sullivan v. Jon Bornemann and Ed Whealon

384 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 14, 2004

“[T]he first inquiry must be whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged; second, assuming the violation is established, the question whether the right was clearly established must be considered … , or if the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

Robin Allman v. Kevin Smith

790 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2015

was   “clearly   established”   before   the   official   acted.   … Selch   and   other   decisions   we   have   men-­‐‑ tioned  clearly  establish  that  a  person  whose  main  duties  are   managing  a  clerical  staff  that  handles  customer  complaints— who   has   limited   operational

William H. Moss v. Timothy Martin, Robert Millette, and Brian Piersma

473 F.3d 694 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 2, 2007

Qualified Immunity The IDOT defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity as an alternative basis on which to affirm judgment in their favor, arguing that the law on this issue was not clearly established at the time … Judgment on the pleadings in favor of the IDOT defendants on the basis of qualified immunity is therefore inappropriate.