Case law

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.

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.  

Greenberg v. Kmetko

811 F.2d 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 3, 1987

Defendants’ second argument is that they are protected from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … A fortiori, constitutional protection for such expressions was not clearly established in 1976.

Perry, Rixson M. v. Sheahan, Michael

222 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2000

Our analysis begins with the well-established proposition that government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly … Because the conduct alleged in the complaint *316 would violate the clearly-established right against unreasonable seizures, we reverse the district court’s dismissal of the damages claims on the grounds of qualified immunity

Misti Crull v. William Sunderman, John W. Rapp, Justice, Lindsay Parkhurst

384 F.3d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2004

Standards for Qualified Immunity The defendants appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity. This decision is reviewed de novo. See McGrath v. … It is not necessary, therefore, for us to consider the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether the right that was denied was clearly established at the time the defendants acted.

Cynthia Williams v. Lindsey Heavener

217 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 28, 2000

Because of the qualified immunity enjoyed by officers performing official functions, she must show that it was clearly established at the time of the defendants’ conduct that a prosecution motivated by malice violated a person … when they acted and that they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Andrew Sledd v. Guy Linsday

102 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 11, 1996

Qualified immunity shields the officers from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … When a defendant officer raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right. Clash v.

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.

Lee, Flynt J. v. Young, Donald

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2008

A two-part test is used to ascertain whether qualified immunity exists. First, the plaintiff must establish that the actions of the defendant violated his constitutional rights. Triad Associates, Inc. v. … Since this right was clearly established in 1998-1999, it was also clearly established during the relevant period of time here, 2001-2002.

Cassandra Socha v. City of Joliet

107 F.4th 700 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2024

Grizzle, are entitled to qualified immunity unless: “(1) they violated a fed- eral statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” Pierner- Lytge v. … Whether an officer protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable depends on the “objective legal reason- ableness” of the conduct in light of clearly established law. Messerschmidt v.

William Rainsberger v. Charles Benner

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 15, 2019

 established Fourth Amendment law, it denied Benner  qualified immunity.  … We held that the of‐ ficer was entitled to qualified immunity. 

Willie Jacobs and Linda Siller v. City of Chicago , a Municipal Corporation the Estate of Sergeant Michael Garner Officers Quintero, Buckner, McLean Keith, and Garrido and Metropolitan Enforcement Group Officers Huff, Martin, Sowinski, and McIntyre

215 F.3d 758 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2000

If the rights were not clearly established, then the official is immune from suit and the claim is dismissed. See Richardson v. … Clearly Established Law 34 We now consider whether the Defendant Officers' conduct violated clearly established law. 35 At the time the search in this case was conducted, it was clearly established that a warrant is fatally

Estate of Scott B. Stevens, Baptist Stevens, and Judy Stevens v. City of Green Bay, John Laux, Officer, and Patrick Buckley, Officer

105 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 29, 1997

“[T]he defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once a defendant has pleaded qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate the existence of the clearly established constitutional right. Abel v. Miller, 824 F.2d 1522, 1534 (7th Cir.1987).

Billie Thompson v. Lance Cope

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2018

Step 2: Clearly Established Law We have appellate jurisdiction to review the legal issue at the second step of qualified immunity analysis: whether the constitutional right that Heishman’s estate asserts was clearly established … In Hope, the Court denied qualified immunity and held that handcuffing a prisoner to a hitching post violated clearly established law. Hope teaches that a case directly on point is not required.

Mace Davis v. City of Elgin, Illinois

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2026

Gonzalez, 761 F.3d 822, 826 (7th Cir. 2014). 4 No. 25-1299 Qualified immunity offers police officers a shield to civil liability when they do “not violate clearly … We granted her judgment as a matter of law, reversing the district court and finding that the officers used excessive force and were not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 517, 524.

John Duda v. Board of Education of Franklin Park Public School District No. 84, John Barry, Dan Pietrini

133 F.3d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 16, 1998

Alabama A & M Univ., Bd. of Trustees, 28 F.3d 1146, 1150 (11th Cir.1994)) (concluding that qualified immunity applied to school superintendent). … To the extent that the allegations are made against the defendants in their personal capacity, they enjoy qualified immunity. The right of privacy asserted by Mr.

Hill v. Shobe

93 F.3d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 23, 1996

We note that the district court certified for interlocutory appeal only its decision on qualified immunity. … To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, however, we must determine whether he violated a clearly established constitutional right at the time he took his action. Montville v.

Richard Doermer v. Kathryn Callen

847 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 1, 2017

Other government offi- cials who do not enjoy absolute immunity are nonetheless shielded by qualified immunity, a robust doctrine that “pro- tects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages in- sofar as their … conduct does not violate clearly established stat- utory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Billie Thompson v. Lance Cope

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2018

Step 2: Clearly Established Law We have appellate jurisdiction to review the legal issue at the second step of qualified immunity analysis: whether the constitutional right that Heishman’s estate asserts was clearly established … In Hope, the Court denied qualified immunity and held that handcuffing a prisoner to a hitching post violated clearly established law. Hope teaches that a case directly on point is not required.