Case law

Amanda Rakes v. Jonathan Roederer

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

Rakes has established a triable state-created danger claim, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. … To violate clearly established law—the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

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. 

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.

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.

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

Tommy Smith, Jr. v. Moises Gomez

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 15, 2008

Grogan stated in an affidavit that he was not personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations and that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Upon review the undisputed evidence clearly establishes that Smith’s rights were not violated.

Darryl H. v. Coler

801 F.2d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1986

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants submit that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects them from personal liability. … Qualified immunity means more than relief from liability; it means immunity from suit. A defendant entitled to qualified immunity should not be required to proceed to trial. Mitchell v.

Owen v. Lash

682 F.2d 648 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 28, 1982

Entities and Officials: Rights of Action, Immunities and Federalism, 53 S.Calif.L.Rev. 945, 1052-1053 (analyzing judicial applications of qualified immunity doctrine). 35 In elaborating on the first part of the qualified … Navarette explained that an official is not immune if "the constitutional right allegedly infringed ... was clearly established at the time of (the) challenged conduct, if (he) knew or should have known of that right, and

Amanda Rakes v. Jonathan Roederer

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

Rakes has established a triable state-created danger claim, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. … To violate clearly established law—the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

Wesley Flynn v. David G. Sandahl

58 F.3d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 16, 1995

was entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … As a preliminary matter we reject the district court’s determination to knock out this claim on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Llaguno v. Mingey

739 F.2d 1186 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 1984

Appellants contend that since the officers should have known that their acts violated clearly established constitutional standards of probable cause, the defense of qualified immunity is unavailable to them as a matter of … Therefore, in view of the clearly established nature of the rights involved and the undisputed facts surrounding their conduct, qualified immunity is unavailable to the officers as a matter of law.

John K. Maciver Inst. for Pub. Policy, Inc. v. Schmitz

885 F.3d 1004 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 21, 2018

"Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 'clearly established … There is no serious dispute that MacIver's interpretation of the SCA was not "clearly established" at the time defendants' warrants were issued.

Robert G. Knoche v. William Wheatley

73 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 20, 1995

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against civil liability if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … prosecution). 4 14 Because Wheatley did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Knox, Paul v. Smith, Deborah

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2003

Smith moved for summary judgment on both claims on grounds of qualified immunity. … Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202 (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”).

Harriett L. McMillan v. Gerald Svetanoff

793 F.2d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 10, 1986

It is well established that judges are immune from liability for their judicial acts, even when they act maliciously or corruptly. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 , 98 S.Ct. 1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978). … We do not discuss qualified immunity because that doctrine was not raised. However, it is interesting to note that qualified immunity was rejected by the Eighth Circuit in Goodwin v. Circuit Court of St.

Gail Stockton v. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

44 F.4th 605 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 9, 2022

Qualified immunity shields state actors from liability where their conduct “does not vio- late clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Reed v. … Stockton bears the burden of defeating Pias- ecki’s claim to qualified immunity. Taylor v. City of Milford, 10 F.4th 800, 806 (7th Cir. 2021). Stockton may demonstrate a right is “clearly established” in three ways.

Mark Janus v. American Federation of State

942 F.3d 352 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 5, 2019

An example that comes readily to mind is the qualified immunity doctrine, which is available for a public employee if the asserted constitutional right that she violated was not clearly established. … As we hinted earlier, however, the reason is simple: the liability of private parties under section 1983 was not clearly established until, at the earliest, the Court’s decision in United States v.

Timothy Johnson v. Michael Rogers

944 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 17, 2019

First, the judge concluded that Rogers is entitled to qualified immunity, be- cause the procedure that led to Johnson’s broken leg did not violate any of his clearly established rights. … The qualified-immunity topic is more difficult. Public officials are entitled to immunity unless, by the time of the contested acts, it was clearly established that those acts vio- lated the Constitution. See Escondido v.

Robert Henderson and Thomas Jefferson v. Richard Derobertis, Warden and Michael O'leary, Assistant Warden, Willie Williams and Warren Lee Harris, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Richard Derobertis and Michael O'Leary

940 F.2d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 1, 1991

established in 1982 to remove defendants' qualified immunity." … established constitutional right under the facts of this case was erroneous, as was his resulting grant of the protection of qualified immunity to the defendants.