Case law

Aleia Tousis v. Keith Billiot

84 F.4th 692 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 18, 2023

right; and whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the officer’s alleged misconduct. … We exercise our discretion to focus on the second prong of the qualified immunity test in deciding this issue: whether Billiot’s use of deadly force in this situation violated clearly established law.

Doe v. Bobbitt

881 F.2d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 9, 1989

The sole issue on appeal is whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … 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

Mark D. Jones and Theresa A. Jones v. Ron Wilhelm, Cross-Appellee

425 F.3d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2005

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials against suits arising out of their exercise of discretionary functions “as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent … Since Wilhelm’s undisputed actions represent a violation of clearly-established, constitutional rights, we find that Wilhelm enjoys no qualified immunity as to the Joneses’ warrant claim. 2.

Eugene Sparing v. Village of Olympia Fields and Officer James Keith

266 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 19, 2001

qualified immunity. … Although Sparing has demonstrated a constitutional violation, he cannot show that the violation was clearly established under the second part of the standard for qualified immunity.

Percy Taylor v. Joseph Ways

999 F.3d 478 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2021

the constitutional right was clearly established at [that] time.” … Step Two: Clearly Established Law in 2011 and 2013 Under the facts asserted by Taylor and relied upon by the district court, Ernst violated clearly established law.

William Gerhartz v. David Richert

779 F.3d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 5, 2015

“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 con- stitutional rights of which a reasonable … was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

John Sabo v. Megan Erickson

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2025

Qualified Immunity and Clearly Established Law A constitutional or statutory right is “clearly established” when the law is “‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable of- ficial would understand that what he is doing’ is … For a discussion about the future of qualified immunity, see id. at 560–68.

John Sabo v. Megan Erickson

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2025

Qualified Immunity and Clearly Established Law A constitutional or statutory right is “clearly established” when the law is “‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable of- ficial would understand that what he is doing’ is … For a discussion about the future of qualified immunity, see id. at 560–68.

John Sabo v. Megan Erickson

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2025

Qualified Immunity and Clearly Established Law A constitutional or statutory right is “clearly established” when the law is “‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable of- ficial would understand that what he is doing’ is … For a discussion about the future of qualified immunity, see id. at 560–68.

Harvey Rambo v. John Daley and William McGinnis

68 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 15, 1995

Defendants argue that qualified immunity should protect them because the lack of a significant injury demonstrates that the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … a violation of ‘clearly established’ law.”

Isaac Sparks v. Ronald Stutler and Manuel Largaespada

71 F.3d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1996

Until the right in question has been “clearly established,” courts do not demand that public officials dig into their pockets. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … The existence of such line-drawing problems calls for immunity; the rule should be established prospectively rather than at the expense of public employees who predict the development of the law incorrectly.

Rainsberger v. Benner

913 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 15, 2019

Qualified immunity involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the facts, read in favor of the non-moving party, amount to a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the … But the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis is not the one designed to specially protect the officer-that comes at the second prong, which limits the officer's liability to violations of clearly established law

Morfin v. City Of East Chicago

349 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2003

Additionally, the district court found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because "based upon the factual record these ECPD officers did not violate any clearly established rule prohibiting such conduct … Morfin, the law is clearly established that an officer has a duty to intervene to prevent a false arrest or the use of excessive force if the officer is informed of the facts that establish a constitutional violation and

Erika Mabes v. Angela McFeeley

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

Both sets of defendants invoked qual- ified immunity, contending that their actions did not violate the Mabeses’ clearly established rights. … Thompson’s en- titlement to qualified immunity naturally follows from the Mabeses’ failure to carry their “burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right.” Forman v.

Erika Mabes v. Angela McFeeley

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

Both sets of defendants invoked qual- ified immunity, contending that their actions did not violate the Mabeses’ clearly established rights. … Thompson’s en- titlement to qualified immunity naturally follows from the Mabeses’ failure to carry their “burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right.” Forman v.

Navreet Nanda v. Gerald Moss

412 F.3d 836 · 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 would … 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.

William Lund v. City of Rockford, Illinois

956 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2020

But even if Nieves did not apply retroactively, Lund still could not prevail, as the defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless they “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v.

Jane Doe v. Village of Arlington Heights

782 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2015

Qualified immunity shields a govern- ment official from liability for damages when the official’s “conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Walker, 740 F.3d 1088, 1095–97 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a clearly estab- lished right and the district court erred in denying the de- fendants’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity

James E. Williams v. Nancy Anderson and S.D. Parwatikar

959 F.2d 1411 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 9, 1992

Thus, in assessing the qualified immunity claims, our concern is whether statutes or caselaw existed in August 1985 to establish clearly that a state prisoner held in a psychiatric unit had a right under the Eighth or Fourteenth … Williams’ claim for damages by the doctrine of qualified immunity; neither Nurse Anderson nor Dr. Parwatikar violated any constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Richard Betker v. Rodolfo Gomez

692 F.3d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 5, 2012

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages unless his or her conduct violates a clearly established principle or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known at … The Lack of Probable Cause Was Clearly Estab- lished at the Time of the Raid The final part of our qualified immunity inquiry is whether the constitutional right at stake “was clearly established at the time of the