Case law

Vaughn Neita v. City of Chicago

830 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 19, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects govern- ment officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Dismissal on qualified-immunity grounds was unwarranted at this stage of the litigation.

Vance v. Rumsfeld

653 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 2011

The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not .violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights *606 of which a reasonable … The Rights Were Clearly Established To decide qualified immunity, we turn next to whether the alleged rights were clearly established.

Robert Siebert and Pamela Siebert v. David Severino

256 F.3d 648 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 6, 2001

Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In either case, this precludes a defense of qualified immunity. Cf.

Monfils v. Taylor

165 F.3d 511 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 23, 1998

Accordingly, the issue before us is a legal one: whether Taylor’s conduct violates a constitutional right which was clearly established in 1992. … Taylor is not and never was entitled to qualified immunity against this claim.

Joseph H. Levenstein v. Bernard Salafsky, Patricia A. Gill, and David C. Broski

414 F.3d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 11, 2005

The qualified immunity ruling spelled the end of his personal capacity claims for damages. … If and only if so, then the court must determine whether the right was clearly established in the light of the *773 specific context of the case. Id.

Charles E. Lockert v. Gordon H. Faulkner

843 F.2d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 26, 1988

The magistrate reasoned that a prisoner’s constitutional right to marry was not clearly established when the defendants denied Lockert’s requests to marry Samplawski. 3 Therefore, the defendants were immune from damages under … However, Turner does not affect the magistrate’s conclusion that a prisoner’s right to marry was not clearly established when the defendants denied Lockert’s marriage request. 5 .

Joe Baird v. John Renbarger

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2009

If it finds a violation, it then asks whether the right was clearly established at the time the official acted. … 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

Richard E. Maxwell v. The City of Indianapolis, Sergeant Harry Gurnell, Officer Dennis Rahn, and Officer George Diehl

998 F.2d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

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 … But if a reasonable officer would not have believed that Maxwell was Moore, then the officers, whatever they themselves did or did not believe, are acting contrary to clearly established law and are not entitled to immunity

Todd McGee v. Donald Bauer, Individually, David Bieniasz, Individually, and Village of Lombard

956 F.2d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 14, 1992

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, Bauer is liable under Section 1983 if his actions violated a clearly established right of McGee’s in July 1984 of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … The right at issue must not be phrased too generally — qualified immunity would be a tenuous shield if a plaintiff could simply say that she has a general, yet clearly established, right to “due process.” See Azeez v.

Sain, Timothy v. Wood, Raymond

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2008

Wood had disqualified himself from immunity by violating a clearly established constitu- tional right. Because the issue of Dr. … Sain’s clearly-established con- stitutional rights.

Elwell, Scott v. Dobucki, Kenneth P.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 10, 2000

Officials lose their immunity only when their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See id. at 817. … He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity, and the judgment of the district court is Affirmed.

Purtell, Jeffrey v. Mason, Bruce

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 2008

Qualified-immunity claims are determined by reference to the two-part inquiry established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). … Whether the facts established a constitutional violation (the first half 2 Officer Mason could have immediately appealed the denial of his qualified-immunity claim. Behrens v.

Joseph Ferguson v. Ryan McDonough

13 F.4th 574 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2021

Ct. 577, 590 (2018) (“The ‘clearly established’ standard also requires that the legal principle clearly prohibit the officer’s conduct in the particular circumstances before him.”); Gant, 924 F.3d at 451 (“Officer Hartman … claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his ac- tions did not violate Gant’s constitutional rights and, even if they did, those rights were not clearly established on or before August 23, 2015.

Owen v. Lash

682 F.2d 648 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 28, 1982

Entities and Officials: Rights of Action, Immunities and Federalism, 53 S.Calif.L.Rev. 945, 1052-1053 (analyzing judicial applications of qualified immunity doctrine). … Navarette explained that an official is not immune if “the constitutional right allegedly infringed . .. was clearly established at the time of [the] challenged conduct, if [he] knew or should have known of that right, and

Gustafson v. Jones

117 F.3d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 1997

immunity from civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The court's comments simply noted an undeniable fact about balancing tests, which is that they produce a wide gray area between the clearly legal and the clearly illegal, and the rules of qualified immunity require giving

James Campbell and Lois Campbell, as Co-Administrators for the Estate of Ronald J. Campbell, Deceased v. Colin F. White

916 F.2d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 24, 1990

established” constitutional right; and that as a police officer acting within the scope of his employment he had a qualified immunity from suit. … established, sufficiently particularized” constitutional right; and that he was entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity.

Gosnell v. City Of Troy

979 F.2d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 17, 1992

These defendants argued that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights by their actions in 1983. … CONCLUSION 19 Because the district court has yet to clearly rule on the merits of the qualified immunity issue, no appealable order exists under the collateral order doctrine.

Todd Cibulka v. City of Madison

992 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2021

There being no clearly established right, the defend- ants are entitled to qualified immunity.”); Post v. … CONCLUSION The officers are entitled to qualified immunity because at no point did they violate Todd Cibulka’s clearly established rights.

Strand v. Minchuk

908 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 8, 2018

For the law to be clearly established - the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis - the "existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate." … This same factual dispute also prevents us from concluding, as Officer Minchuk urges, that Strand's clearly established constitutional rights were not violated, the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Jacobs, Willie v. City of Chicago

215 F.3d 758 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2000

If the rights were not clearly established, then the official is immune from suit and the claim is dismissed. See Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 403 , 117 S.Ct. 2100 , 138 L.Ed.2d 540 (1997). … Clearly Established Law We now consider whether the Defendant Officers’ conduct violated clearly established law. *771 At the time the search in this case was conducted, it was clearly established that a warrant is fatally