Case law

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

Dawn E. Carter, Now Known as Dawn E. Trojaovich v. Randall Simpson, Now Known as Dudley Randall R. Simpson

328 F.3d 948 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 13, 2003

The district court granted summary judgment for Simpson, concluding that Simpson had immunity for any alleged negligent conduct and that Simpson’s conduct could qualify as neither willful and wanton nor a deprivation of substantive … Illinois case law is unclear on what conduct by a driver of an emergency vehicle may qualify as willful and wanton.

Gonzalez v. City of Elgin

578 F.3d 526 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 20, 2009

Since the purpose of qualified immunity is to protect public officials from guessing about constitutional developments at their peril, the plaintiffs have the burden of showing that the constitutional right was clearly established … it would not violate clearly established rights.”

O'Neal Johnson v. Ryan Edwards

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 27, 2026

In the context of qualified immunity, if probable cause is arguable, a plaintiff cannot show an officer violated her clearly established right to be free from arrest. … Merits aside, Johnson cannot overcome qualified immun- ity because he has not shown he had a clearly established right to be free from the unbelted car ride he suffered.

Spencer v. Pistorius

605 F. App'x 559 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 25, 2015

Beyond this, the court added, the undisputed evidence establishes that the two officers had acted reasonably and thus were entitled to qualified immunity. II. … As a fallback these defendants invoke qualified immunity, but their argument is feeble.

Thomas Hobgood v. Illinois Gaming Board

731 F.3d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2013

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The defendants argue that they are immune because Hobgood did not have a clearly estab- lished right to deliver confidential information to Gnutek, but their argument is irrelevant to the issue of qualified immunity.

Estate of Miller, Ex Rel. Bertram v. Tobiasz

680 F.3d 984 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 24, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or con *989 stitutional rights … qualified immunity analysis; that the constitutional right must be clearly established.

Via, Tonisha v. LaGrand, Sandra

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 17, 2006

See Jones, 425 F.3d at 460 (holding that a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the alleged constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation). … was not yet clearly established at the time of the investigation of Via.”

Randall Martin v. Robert Goldsmith

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

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability to the extent that their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to which a reasonable person would have known … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Martin must show (1) the defendants violated a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. Doe v.

Mark A. Campbell v. Kevin Kallas

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2019

As relevant here, the judge rejected the claim of qualified immunity, concluding that caselaw clearly established a constitutional right to effective medical treatment. We reverse. … Because no case clearly establishes that denying treatment beyond hormone therapy is unconstitu- tional, qualified immunity applies regardless.

Charles Brumitt v. Sam Smith

102 F.4th 444 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 20, 2024

circumstances was ‘clearly established.’” … denying qualified immunity.

Bruning v. Pixler

949 F.2d 352 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1991

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Court adopted an objective standard for qualified immunity. … alleged conduct violated the law and that that law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred."

Nelson Edwards v. Michael Jolliff-Blake

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2018

  that  constitutional  right  was  clearly  established  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  violation.”  …   immunity);  Junkert,  610 F.3d at 370 (concluding officers were entitled to qualified  immunity based on  their reasonable  belief that  the  affidavit  established probable cause even though it left “much to be de‐ sired”)

Thomas Mahoney v. Russell Kesery

976 F.2d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 30, 1992

But if a reasonable officer would not have believed the person had committed a crime, then the officer, whatever he did or did not believe, is acting contrary to clearly established law and therefore has no immunity. … What is true is that often the question of immunity is one of law — specifically, it is the question: what was the clearly established rule of law when the officers committed the acts for which they are being sued?

Frank Humphrey v. Norbert Staszak

148 F.3d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 23, 1998

In the context of an arrest, qualified immunity “will shield a police officer from § 1983 liability if a reasonable officer could have believed [the plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and … CONCLUSION For these reasons and those stated by the Supreme Court and by us in our previous decisions, we hold that Officer Staszak did not violate a clearly established law and that he is entitled to qualified immunity,

Estate of Clark v. Walker

865 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 26, 2017

Step 2: Clearly Established Law We do have jurisdiction to review the second qualified immunity step: whether Clark’s asserted rights were clearly established at the time of his suicide. … First, he argues that it is “doubtful” whether circuit precedent can clearly establish law for purposes of qualified immunity. He cites two Supreme Court cases, but both cases leave this question unanswered.

Sharon Anderson v. Mario Cornejo, Appeals Of: Sergei Hoteko, Patrick Noonan, and Robert Trotter

355 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2004

Three of the defendants in this Bivens action have taken interlocutory appeals, contending that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Similarly, the knowledge of prosecutors (and judges) that most defendants in crack-cocaine cases are black does not establish discrimination.

Phillip D. Carlson and Thomas R. Smith v. Mary E. Gorecki

374 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2004

Finally, based on this record, Górecki is not entitled to qualified immunity. … The cloak of qualified immunity is removed from a government official if the plaintiffs show that the law prohibiting the government official’s conduct was “clearly established.” Gregorich v.

Ricardo Glover v. Kevin A. Carr

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2020

Holzmacher would surely be entitled to qualified immunity. In order for Dr. … Holzmacher is not presently a party to the litigation, we decline to resolve the matter of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is a personal defense, Walker v.

Donovan v. City of Milwaukee

17 F.3d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1994

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … As the Adams court correctly ob *953 served, “generalities are just not helpful” in qualified immunity decisions because “[t]he bright line of ‘clearly established law”’ is “staked out by a process of inclusion and exclusion