Case law

Easter House, an Illinois, Not-For-Profit Corporation v. Thomas Felder, Florence McGuire and Joan Satoloe

852 F.2d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 8, 1988

They argue that none of their actions, viewed as isolated events, clearly violated Easter House’s right to due process. If the issue were actually this narrow, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. … The Hobson court held that the FBI officials could not invoke qualified immunity.

Thomas R. Salzer v. Frederick Dellinger

54 F.3d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 8, 1995

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Under these facts, we conclude that the deputy sheriffs did not violate any clearly established right, so they were entitled to qualified immunity under Sec. 1983. 9 See, e.g., England v.

Amanda Rakes v. Jonathan Roederer

117 F.4th 968 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

Rakes has established a triable state-created danger claim, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. … To violate clearly established law—the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

Thompson v. Holm

809 F.3d 376 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 4, 2016

immunity is unavailable because accommodation of a prisoner’s religious diet is a clearly established right. … The defendants’ final argument is that qualified immunity shields them.

Khuans v. School District 110

123 F.3d 1010 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 2, 1997

Therefore, qualified immunity will apply unless (1) the conduct alleged in the complaint sets forth a constitutional violation and (2) the constitutional standards were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … But the court then incorrectly concluded that because it “is presently unclear whether or not the right is clearly established for the purposes of Nelson’s immunity” the immunity matter would be put off until more facts became

Lucinda Lovett v. Landon Herbert

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 29, 2018

established law for qualified immunity pur- poses. … But this is too fine an analysis on which to base a finding of clearly established law, and we are skeptical that a decision on the merits (not addressing qualified immunity), finding that defendant officials did not violate

Amanda Rakes v. Jonathan Roederer

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

Rakes has established a triable state-created danger claim, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. … To violate clearly established law—the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

Finch v. Peterson

622 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 10, 2010

The 1978 consent decree does not operate to confer qualified immunity on the city officials who were involved in making the challenged promotions. … As a fallback position, they contend that at the very least, as of 2006 it was not 8 No. 09-2676 clearly established that a municipal employee might face liability for mere

White, Brian v. City Markham

310 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 13, 2002

Qualified Immunity The plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in dismissing the claims against Officer Muldrow and Chief Lymore based on qualified immunity. … The threshold inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

Livell Figgs v. Alex Dawson

829 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 25, 2016

“The  doctrine  of  qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages  insofar  as  their  conduct  does  not  violate  clearly established  statutory  or  constitutional  rights  of  which … Thus, Fishel is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Craig Strand v. Curtis Minchuk

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 8, 2018

Doing so would mark a stark depar‐ ture from clearly established law regarding an officer’s use of  deadly  force.  … 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 be‐ yond debate.” 

Hill v. Coppleson

627 F.3d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 22, 2010

For his part, Rogers asserted that he was entitled to absolute immunity because his actions were taken in connection with his prosecutorial duties, and alternatively, that he was entitled to qualified immunity because his … A prosecutor is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her “actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Viilo v.

Amanda Rakes v. Jonathan Roederer

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

Rakes has established a triable state-created danger claim, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. … To violate clearly established law—the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

Amanda Rakes v. Jonathan Roederer

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

Rakes has established a triable state-created danger claim, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. … To violate clearly established law—the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

Green v. Carlson

826 F.2d 647 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 13, 1987

A. 4 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the undisputed facts, so read, show that the defendant's conduct, as a matter of law, violated no clearly established legal norms, then the district court must grant the defendant qualified immunity.

McMATH v. CITY OF GARY, INDIANA

976 F.2d 1026 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 3, 1992

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss McMath's amended complaint, and also raised the defense of qualified immunity. … See Ind.Code. § 34-4-16.5-3. 37 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.

Michael Scott v. Marco Glumac

3 F.3d 163 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 6, 1993

Qualified immunity shields police officers “from suit for damages if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the action] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed.’ ” … For the purposes of qualified immunity, uncertainty in the law protects as well as law that clearly authorizes the officer’s action.

James E. Miller, Jr. v. Arthur L. Jones, Police Chief

444 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 17, 2006

He argued there were no material facts in dispute and that he was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity we look to two issues.

Leaf, Larry J. v. Shelnutt, Ronald

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2005

, principles established by the Supreme Court with respect to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … of one ‘clearly established’ right . . . .”); see also International Action Center v.

Michael Schertz and Beverly Schertz v. Waupaca County

875 F.2d 578 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 21, 1989

Officials perform *583 ing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Schertz’s claims lack a connection to any “clearly established” law which the officials could have violated.