Case law

Jo Whitlock v. Shawn Brown

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

actions were unconstitutional in light of clearly established law? … Brown is entitled to qualified immunity.

Alexander, Steven J. v. City of Milwaukee

474 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

Clearly Established Law During the Relevant Period Qualified immunity protects officials from suit and from liability for civil damages when, at the time of the challenged action, the contours of the constitutional right … established, we also must conclude that the de- fendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Ronald Matrisciano v. Randle, Micheal P.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 26, 2009

to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, qualified immunity applied. Id. More recently, however, the Supreme Court has decreed that the Saucier two-step sequence is no longer mandatory. Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at 818.

Marcus B. Feldman v. Art Bahn

12 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1994

Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980) (governmental bodies are not entitled to qualified immunity from damages). … There is no “clearly established” right — there is no right, period — to defame a fellow member of the faculty. “Society has a pervasive and strong interest in preventing and redressing attacks upon reputation.”

Nathaniel Brown v. Michael Randle

847 F.3d 861 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 7, 2017

Under the circumstances, therefore, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from damages. … Even if it is not clearly established that the Constitution requires immediate release of sex of- fenders who lack lawful living plans, it must be clearly es- tablished that inmates who have such plans are entitled to their

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 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. ' The Court therefore reaches no conclusion on the

Manning, Steven v. Miller, Gary

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2004

Similarly, Manning is able to meet the second prong of the qualified immunity test: his constitutional due proc- ess right was “clearly established” at the time he asserts it was violated. … Because Manning is able to show that he is asserting a violation of a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at that time, Agents Buchan and Miller cannot prevail on their qualified immunity claim

Kelsey Smith v. Michael Whitsel

134 F.4th 962 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 17, 2025

The court stated that, in 2019, the law clearly established that non-medical jail staff may not ignore a detainee in obvious medical distress. See Dobbey v. Mitchell- Lawshea, 806 F.3d 938, 941 (7th Cir. 2015). … But, as we have repeatedly explained, an interlocutory appeal is available only if this court can review the denial of qualified immunity as a matter of law. Johnson v.

James W. Kerr v. Steven Puckett

138 F.3d 321 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 10, 1998

But we added that the novelty of applying this principle to self-improvement programs in prison precludes an award of damages; public officials have qualified immunity unless clearly established law would have alerted them … The district court relied on 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) in addition to qualified immunity.

Board, Herbert L. v. Farnham, Karl

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2005

actions was clearly established at the time of their occur- rence. … titled to qualified immunity on this claim.

McMath v. City of Gary

976 F.2d 1026 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 28, 1992

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss McMath’s amended complaint, and also raised the defense of qualified immunity. … As to qualified immunity, the defendants raised such a general defense in their motion to dismiss, but did not seek immunity under the Indiana statute.

Gonzalez v. Village of West Milwaukee

671 F.3d 649 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

Claims of qualified immunity involve two inquiries: (1) whether the official violated a constitu- tional or statutory right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. … No. 10-2356 21 clearly established under the state or federal constitu- tions at the time of Gonzalez’s arrests, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Richard Paul Greenberg v. Thomas Kmetko and Bruce Weflen, Richard Paul Greenberg, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. Thomas Kmetko and Bruce Weflen, Defendants-Cross-Appellees

840 F.2d 467 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1988

home unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances," Anderson, 107 S.Ct. at 3038 --was clearly established. 21 Anderson filed a petition for certiorari on the qualified immunity issue … On remand, the district court was to permit Anderson to argue that the law was not clearly established as to the facts of his particular situation. 24 In this case, the district court's analysis of the qualified immunity

William Payton v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, Rick Freeman, Anthony Murray and William Blair

184 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 1, 1999

did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” when he or she acted. … employed building inspector could not invoke qualified immunity).

Phelan, Laura v. Village Lyons IL

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

Second, we ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201; Boyd, 481 F.3d at 526. … Phelan construes this argument as an attempt by Officer Dyas to append a “third prong” to the qualified immunity inquiry: namely, whether the officer’s actions were reasonable even if they violated clearly established law

Willie Rogers v. Nicholas Byroad

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2025

Allowing review of such or- ders is consistent with the goal of sparing a public official from the burden of defending a suit and standing trial when the right he is accused of violating was not clearly established at the … - ants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Denius, Ronald C. v. Dunlap, Wayne

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. … which Dunlap cannot receive qualified immunity.

Gerald Dix v. Edelman Financial Services

978 F.3d 507 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 19, 2020

The Officers Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. And so we come to the final issue of qualified immunity. … “Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have ‘violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged con- duct.’”

Jeffrey O'Neal Marshall, a Minor by His Guardian Ad Litem Paul J. Gossens v. Daniel Teske, Alfonzo Morales, and David Kolatski

284 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 27, 2002

The officers also argue that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Saucier established a two-part qualified immunity inquiry.

Virgil Jones v. Ronald Watson, J. Volland, and W. Stec

106 F.3d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 10, 1997

Winston, 36 F.3d 548 , 555 & n. 7 (7th Cir.1994), certiorari denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2576 , 132 L.Ed.2d 827 (1995). 7 *778 Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary … arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting officers possessed.’ ” Hunter v.