Case law

Scott Elwell v. Kenneth P. Dobucki

224 F.3d 638 · 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 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity, and the judgment of the district court is Affirmed.

Albert J. Sullivan v. Mary Flannigan, Superintendent, and Sam Parwatikar, Psychiatrist

8 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 1, 1993

“Qualified immunity” shields government officials from liability for discretionary acts that do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … This policy did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, and thus defendants have qualified immunity for their treatment of Sullivan before 1990. Sherman, 987 F.2d at 409 .

Hohol v. Jess

414 F. App'x 853 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2011

immunity because their conduct (enforcing a prison policy placing monetary limits on personal property) was not clearly unconstitutional. … In any event, the district court properly determined in the alternative that the Defendants are protected by qualified immunity in that their conduct did not violate a “clearly established” constitutional right.

Anthony Jones v. Dr. Mary Flannigan and Dr. Vallabhaneni

14 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 20, 1994

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for discretionary conduct if they did not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known" at " … This court recently held that these pre-Harper procedures to administer medication involuntarily to prisoners did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, and therefore, state officials were entitled to qualified

Michael J. Green and Cheryl Poulsen v. Marlo Butler, David Carroll, Mark Salsberry

420 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 24, 2005

Qualified Immunity The district court held in the alternative that, even if the parole agents violated Mr. Green’s and Ms. Poulsen’s Fourth Amendment rights, they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … Qualified immunity shields the agents from suit unless Mr. Green and Ms.

Norman Berman v. Jackie Young

291 F.3d 976 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 26, 2002

issue was clearly established at the time of the violation. … immunity because the alleged constitutional violation will rarely — if ever — be clearly established.”). 3.

John Doe v. Adam Gray

75 F.4th 710 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person … Conclusion The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, as there is no clearly established right to privacy in one’s sexual preference or gender identity during a criminal or child wel- fare investigation.

Milazzo v. O'Connell

108 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken, id., at 818 [ 102 S.Ct., at 2738 ].”

Bethesda Lutheran Homes and Services, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Gerald Born, and Thomas Schleitwiler

238 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2001

The district court dismissed the new suit primarily on the ground that the defendants were entitled to a qualified (that is, good-faith) immunity from a suit for damages, as no rule of law that was clearly established when … immunity.

Theresa Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

Even  if  the  officers  had  used  unreasonable  force,  the  court concluded they were entitled to qualified immunity because the  officers  did  not  violate  a  clearly  established  right.  Id.  at 1016–22.  … The officers did not violate a clearly established right and they are entitled to qualified immunity.  III.  

Theresa Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

Even  if  the  officers  had  used  unreasonable  force,  the  court concluded they were entitled to qualified immunity because the  officers  did  not  violate  a  clearly  established  right.  Id.  at 1016–22.  … The officers did not violate a clearly established right and they are entitled to qualified immunity.  III.  

Fairley, Roger v. Fermaint, Evan

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2007

No. 06-2411 9 It was clearly established long before the events of which plaintiffs complain that state actors may not assault witnesses in federal litigation. … “[I]f a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. Hosty v.

Gloria L. Spreen v. Allen Brey, Norman Dassow and Thomas Pink

961 F.2d 109 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 1, 1992

established constitutional right of Plaintiff’s, and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … The second issue is whether Defendants’ alleged conduct violated Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights; if not, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Lindell v. Pollard

681 F. App'x 518 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2017

Still, the court concluded, the Waupun defendants have qualified immunity because inmates do not have a clearly established right to sort through contraband or mail it to anyone. … Moreover, we see no reason to muddy the waters with an unnecessary discussion of qualified immunity.

John C. Bleavins v. Joel H. Bartels, Roger Bay, and Vernon McGregor

326 F.3d 887 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 16, 2003

immunity. … If so, the question then turns to whether the right that was violated was clearly established. Id. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . Bleavins contends the trailers were ■within the curtilage of his home when they were seized.

Thompson, Beverly v. Wagner, David E.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 13, 2003

Qualified immunity shields police officers from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not vio- late “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … light of the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and clearly established law, Mrs.

Milazzo v. O'connell

108 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 22, 1997

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … 'clearly established' at the time it was taken, id., at 818 [ 102 S.Ct., at 2738 ]."

Russell v. Devereaux

389 F. App'x 557 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 5, 2010

Thus, the trial court concluded that the defendants’s search of Russell's vehicle was lawful and they are entitled to qualified immunity. … We review de novo the question of qualified immunity; as the parties have framed it, that question is whether the officers violated Russell’s “clearly established” right not to be arrested without probable cause.

Patrick Dockery v. Sherrie Blackburn

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2018

Qualified Immunity A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011). … Qualified-immunity analysis usually entails a two-step inquiry: we ask (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly

Jeffrey L. Atterberry v. Leonard Sherman, John Coghlan, Emmons Russell, and Robert Hewson

453 F.3d 823 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2006

The district court found the state actors were entitled to qualified immunity. For similar reasons, we agree, and affirm. I. HISTORY Atterberry has worked for the DPR since 1984. … In any event, we need not resolve this issue because qualified immunity, the main focus of the parties’ arguments, more clearly leads us to find in favor of the state actors.