Case law

Ricky J. Rapier v. Sheriff William Harris, Jail Commander Jon Marvel, Correctional Officer Ray Higginbotham

172 F.3d 999 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 19, 1999

Rapier’s favor, however, we must conclude that the defendants enjoy qualified immunity. … On the other hand, when the law is clearly established at a level of sufficient specificity, a government official may not rely on qualified immunity.

Williams, David v. Liefer, John

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 5, 2007

Qualified Immunity Finally, the defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the defendants’ delay in procuring Williams medical treatment violated his constitutional … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (recognizing that officers are entitled to qualified immunity if they violated a constitutional right that was not clearly established).

United States v. Howard C. Flomenhoft

714 F.2d 708 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 21, 1983

In mid-November 1976, he established two Illinois limited partnerships (Polls Creek Associates and Morgan Associates) and antedated the partnership documents to make it appear that the partnerships had been established prior … Flomenhoft clearly schemed to defraud potential investors when he represented to them that Polls Creek Associates and Morgan Associates qualified for the old favorable tax treatment.

Trust & Investment Advisers, Inc. v. Hogsett

43 F.3d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 19, 1994

“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 … As a government official performing discretionary functions that she had no reason to believe violated TIA’s clearly established constitutional rights, Dant is immune from this suit for damages. IV.

Herbert Dellenbach v. James Letsinger, Paul Buchanan, Janet Roberts Blue, Marianna Novak and Debra Banach

889 F.2d 755 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 14, 1989

Absolute immunity, like qualified immunity, has the important attribute of “its possessor's entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.” Mitchell v. … Third, a qualified “good faith” immunity would be virtually worthless because of the ease of alleging bad faith.

Larry Kemp v. David Liebel

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 11, 2017

The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity  “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 … Liebel Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law  Under this framework, it is clear that Liebel is protected  by qualified immunity. 

Daniel Engel v. Robert Buchan

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 5, 2013

We also held that the agents were not protected by qualified immunity because the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the events at issue in the case. … Qualified immunity “pro- tects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Sornberger v. City Of Knoxville

434 F.3d 1006 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 20, 2006

However, the qualified immunity doctrine does not protect those who act unreasonably or "who knowingly violate the law." Hunter, 502 U.S. at 228 , 112 S.Ct. 534 . Qualified immunity is, as the term implies, qualified. … Alternatively, the court held that Officers Sheppard and Riley would be protected by qualified immunity because a reasonable officer in their position would not have been on notice that his conduct violated clearly established

Hosty, Margaret v. Carter, Patricia

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 20, 2005

Only if the answer is affirmative does the court inquire whether the official enjoys qualified immunity. … Finally, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Dean Carter is entitled to qualified immunity.

John Sabo v. Megan Erickson

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 30, 2024

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects gov- ernment officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … We held that the record- keeper was not entitled to qualified immunity because “closely analogous” cases, including Sample and Haygood, had clearly established the obligation of corrections officials—and recordkeepers in

Elias Villalobos v. Louis Picicco

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 6, 2026

Clearly Established Law There are two prongs to the qualified immunity analysis. Doe, 75 F.4th at 716. First, courts ask whether officials violated a federal right. Id. … That means courts must not “define clearly established law at too high a level of generality.”

Thompson v. Duke

882 F.2d 1180 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 1989

Cross, 635 F.2d 476, 481 (5th Cir.1981) (not addressing an absolute immunity claim, but stating that parole board members enjoy qualified immunity); Thompson v. … In Morrissey , the Supreme Court established certain procedures which must be observed for revocation of parole. The Court did not consider any claims of immunity, either absolute or qualified.

Tyrone Petties v. Imhotep Carter

836 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2016

Qualified Immunity Inappropriate at Summary Judgment Stage While the district court did not reach the issue, in the proceedings below, *734 the defendants pursued the additional argument that they were entitled to qualified … Obaisi knew that the course of treatment they were pursuing was inadequate to meet Petties’s serious medical needs, such conduct violates clearly established law under the Eighth Amendment.

Wolf v. Kennelly

574 F.3d 406 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2009

Pfizer, Inc., 492 F.3d 789 (7th Cir.2007), we decided that “qualified immunity jurisprudence provides appropriate guidance for determining whether a defendant had an objectively reasonable basis for removal.” … As we discussed in Lott , the qualified immunity doctrine assumes that state officials are aware of existing case law and holds officials liable only if they violate clearly established and particularized rights.

Micah Uetricht v. Chicago Parking Meters, LLC

64 F.4th 827 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2023

Although the state obviously cannot obtain Parker protection simply by declaring that its system meets the Supreme Court’s criteria for immunity, the state may take whatever steps it wishes to clarify that it is “clearly … If that were true, then just as in the Seattle case, the defendants would not qualify for state-action immunity, and we would need to reverse for further proceedings.

Terrance Huff v. Michael Reichert

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 10, 2014

Discussion  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 …   defendant’s]  qualified  immunity  defense,”  the  facts asserted by the plaintiffs make out a violation of clearly  established  law. 

Mother Goose Nursery Schools, Inc. v. Sendak

770 F.2d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 1985

There are two kinds of immunity: qualified and absolute. … Qualified immunity, while also an immunity from suit, arises from the facts of the particular case and is granted to government officials performing discretionary functions and whose “conduct does not violate clearly established

John Casteel, Mark S. Hinton, and Timothy A. Nesja v. Leon R. Pieschek, Sheriff of the Brown County Jail, Charles D. Ingram, Sr. v. Michael L. Becher, Sheriff of Clark County, Indiana

3 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 23, 1993

Both cases involve individual capacity claims against public officials, 1 however, and therefore we must first resolve the qualified immunity question of whether Bounds' applicability to county jails was clearly established … To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, the defendants' actions must be compared to what a reasonable official would believe was required in light of the clearly established legal rules regarding county jail

Gossmeyer v. McDonald

128 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 7, 1997

Under the defense of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … We review de novo whether a plaintiff has a clearly established statutory or constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity. See, Maltby v.

Sullivan, Connie v. Ramirez, Robert

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 3, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a privilege that provides “ ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.’ ” Saucier v. … Neither must we consider whether the law was clearly established under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis because we conclude that the facts as alleged do not estab- lish a First Amendment violation.