Case law

Carmichael v. Village of Palatine, Ill.

605 F.3d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 21, 2010

Lawson, 539 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2008), we summarized the basic principles governing the law of qualified immunity: The doctrine of qualified immunity shields from liability public officials who perform discretionary … If the officers can establish that they had “arguable probable cause” to arrest the plaintiff, then the officers are entitled to qualified immunity, even if a court later determines that they did not actually

Young v. Lane

922 F.2d 370 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 1991

The alleged violations are neither of such caliber as to rise to the level of constitutional violations nor are they so clearly established as to remove qualified immunity. 10 The free exercise clause of the first amendment … As such, the alleged violation has not been so “clearly established” at the time of the conduct as to remove defendants’ qualified immunity. See Harlow v.

Richard Schneiter v. Kevin Carr

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

The qualified-immunity inquiry has two steps: We ask first whether the defendants “violated a federal statutory or constitutional right” and second whether “the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the … The defendants preserved the qualified-immunity de- fense, but the district judge did not specifically address it. That was understandable.

David Killinger v. Don Johnson, Individually, and as Mayor and Liquor Commissioner, and Village of Port Byron, Illinois

389 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 24, 2004

Killinger does not seriously dispute that such actions would normally qualify as judicial functions. … Conclusion We hold that Mayor Johnson is protected by absolute judicial immunity. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to establish that a policy of Port Byron caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Wagner v. Washington County

493 F.3d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2007

Although we disagree with the court’s legal determination, we affirm the judgment on the alternative ground that the deputies are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. I. … That said, we nonetheless uphold the judgment in favor of the deputies because we conclude that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Charles Smith v. Paul Anderson

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 31, 2017

Thus, when  sex offenders lack these arrangements, their continued deten‐ tion  does  not  violate  clearly  established  rights.  … In  such  cir‐ cumstances, the officers responsible for their detention are en‐ titled to qualified immunity. Id.  That is the situation here. 

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.

Jose Garcia v. Shawn Posewitz

79 F.4th 874 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2023

All defendants argued that they had qualified immunity because their decisions to arrest and prosecute Garcia did not violate clearly established law. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow v.

Tyquan Stewart v. Parkview Hospital

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 22, 2019

Police officers enjoy immunity from liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or consti‐ tutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … In these circumstances, Stewart cannot establish that the officers violated a right clearly established under the Fourth Amendment, and qualified immunity ap‐ plies. Id.; see also Wilson v.

Vaughn Neita v. City of Chicago

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2025

Qualified Immunity We now turn to the core of the officers’ defense at sum- mary judgment: qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Law “A right is clearly established when it is ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’” Rivas-Villegas v.

Hugh Joseph, Administrator of the Estate of Mark Joseph, A/K/A Larry Jones v. David Brierton, Warden, Stateville Correctional Center, Defendants

739 F.2d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 7, 1984

rights of which a reasonable person would have known____ If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail .... ” Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738-39 . … As the law was, therefore, established, the defendants were not entitled to immunity.

Holocaust Victims of v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank

692 F.3d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2012

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525-30 (1985) (denial of qualified immunity based on question of law was immediately appealable); Nixon v. … Like qualified or absolute immunity in civil rights lawsuits, sovereign immunity is an immunity from trial and the attendant burdens of litigation.

David Kristofek v. Village of Orland Hills

832 F.3d 785 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2016

The court al- so concluded that Scully was entitled to qualified immunity. … and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged viola- tion.”

K.H. ex rel. Murphy v. Morgan

914 F.2d 846 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 24, 1990

“Thus, ... a qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual … In Wade, 804 F.2d at 70 , we held that qualified immunity cases under Harlow v.

United States v. Angelita Newton

76 F.4th 662 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2023

We begin with Newton’s argument that her due process rights were violated when the government selectively with- held immunity from Bolender while granting immunity to other witnesses. … The calculation of the loss amount attributable to Newton was, therefore, clearly errone- ous. See United States v.

Anderson v. Holmes

16 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 10, 1994

The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment that was based on qualified immunity. … had occasion to decide issues involving qualified immunity would be a generous understatement, and we will refrain from adding to the already lengthy expositions on the subject. 4 Let it suffice to say that qualified immunity

Newsome, James v. McCabe, John

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 11, 2001

Putting Buckley and all problems of establishing causation to one side, we make the normal immunity inquiry: was it clearly established in 1979 and 1980 that police could not withhold from prosecutors exculpatory information … The decision of the district court rejecting defendants’ affirmative defense of qualified immunity is accordingly affirmed.

Bleavins, John C. v. Bartels, Joel H.

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. Bleavins contends the trailers were within the curtilage of his home when they were seized.

Joseph L. Donahue v. Patrick Staunton, Individually and as Chicago Area Zone Director

471 F.2d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 26, 1973

“At best, defendants’ qualified immunity in this case means that they can prevail only if they show that plaintiffs were discharged on justifiable grounds. … Thus, here a successful defense on the merits merges with a successful defense under the qualified immunity doctrine.”

Anibal L. Taboas v. Bernard J. Mlynczak

149 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 6, 1998

therefore applies with as much force in this context as it does to other claims of qualified or absolute immunity. … In requesting immunity through substitution, the movant 4 has the same procedural options as a defendant asserting other forms of immunity, such as an absolute or qualified immunity defense.