Case law

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.

Brant v. Volkert

72 F. App'x 463 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 25, 2003

Alternatively, the district court held that Brant’s lawsuit against the officers was barred by qualified immunity, because he was unable to show that the officers violated any of his clearly established rights. … It is Brant’s burden to establish that the officers violated his clearly established rights, see Denius v.

Young v. Murphy

90 F.3d 1225 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 22, 1996

(physician under contract to prison entitled to assert qualified immunity where physician was “performing duties that would otherwise have to be performed by a public official who clearly would have qualified immunity”), … If a complaint fails to allege a clearly established constitutional violation against a public official, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Zorzi v. County of Putnam, 30 F.3d 885, 892 (7th Cir.1994).

Doe v. Heck

327 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 15, 2003

established, thereby entitling them to qualified immunity from the plaintiffs' suit. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are "`shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable

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.” 

Maust v. Headley

959 F.2d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 26, 1992

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … If there are issues of disputed fact upon which the question of immunity turns, or if it is clear that the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established norms, summary judgment may not may granted. Green v.

Hosty, Margaret v. Carter, Patricia

325 F.3d 945 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2003

The pivotal issue for us is whether Dean Carter was entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials per- forming discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

William R. Glass v. Alfred H. Dachel and County of Chippewa

2 F.3d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 11, 1993

Qualified Immunity. … As a final point, the defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity because they were performing a discretionary function which did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person

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.” 

Steven A. Kurowski and David H. Nicholls v. James J. Krajewski, Individually and in His Capacity as Judge of the Lake County Court, Division III

848 F.2d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 2, 1988

Krajewski contends that even if Branti clearly established the constitutional right in question, a judge acting in December 1985 could not reasonably have predicted that he would be held liable for such an act. … The argument runs: In December 1985 a reasonable person might have predicted that a judge would be immune from damages for firing a public defender; therefore “the law” in 1985 had not clearly established that judges could

John Auriemma v. James Montgomery and Donald Hubert

860 F.2d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 1, 1988

The absolute immunity of an advocate is not confined strictly to actions taken in the courtroom, see, e.g., Barrett, 798 F.2d at 573 , and, at least with regard to prosecutors, the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that … All a person need do to avoid personal liability under qualified immunity is to refrain from violating a person’s “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Velez, David v. Johnson, Michael

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 13, 2005

Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Velez has also met the second Saucier requirement that the constitutional right be clearly established.

Delaney, Glen v. DeTella, George

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2001

Having found that Delaney has alleged a constitutional violation, we consider whether the right he asserts was clearly established prior to the spring of 1996. "’[C]learly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means … On this record, Judge Coar was right to deny the qualified immunity plea of all defendants.

Brooks v. City of Aurora, Ill.

653 F.3d 478 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 6, 2011

Further, controlling law at the time of the incident did not clearly establish that the use of pepper spray was unreasonable under the circumstances; thus, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. … To deter- mine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we ask (1) “whether [Mr.

Tun, Brandon v. Whitticker, Joselyn

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 16, 2005

Analysis of whether qualified immunity applies requires a two-step inquiry. … They are entitled to qualified immunity.

Auriemma v. Rice

895 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 6, 1990

If it was not clearly established that whites as a class were within the purview of Sec. 1985(3) in 1983, then there is no clearly established constitutional violation. 24 In denying qualified immunity to Rice on this issue … immunity inquiry of whether a constitutional right is clearly established.

Wernsing, Jenny v. Thompson, Odell

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 9, 2005

The district court also rejected Thompson’s claim of qualified immunity, holding that it was clearly established that Thompson’s alleged actions restricting or retaliating against plaintiffs’ speech on matters of public concern … If the clearly established question could be resolved merely by observing that unjustified prior restraints on speech are prohibited, then no defendant could ever prevail on the clearly established prong of the qualified

Barbara Propst and Franklin M. Propst v. Donald L. Bitzer, Morton W. Weir, Judith S. Liebman, and Robert M. Berdahl

39 F.3d 148 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 1, 1994

The administrators are therefore entitled to qualified immunity from his suit, just as they were from Barbara’s. B. … Bitzer After resolving the qualified immunity issue, the district court granted summary judgment to Bitzer, finding that even with all inferences in their favor, the Propsts had failed to establish that the transfers violated

Shanika Day v. Franklin Wooten

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2020

Denial of Qualified Immunity We review de novo a district court’s denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity defense. Rooni v. Biser, 742 F.3d 737, 740 (7th Cir. 2014). … However, the officers did not violate any clearly established right.

William E. Oyler v. National Guard Association of the United States

743 F.2d 545 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 10, 1984

, that under the qualified immunity test utilized by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … Assuming arguendo that only qualified immunity applied, we are confident the defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment based on their uncontested affidavits which demonstrate that they did not violate clearly